IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


fe 


{./ 


1.0 


I.I 


|50     '"'^" 

^  m 

us 


2.5 
22 

120 

1.8 


1.25      U      1.6 

^ 

6"     

► 

V] 


/A 


^K^^^J 


fi: 


V 


&.. 


/ 


'/ 


z;^ 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


4^ 


V 


4^ 


:\ 


\ 


tV 


o^ 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14SS0 

(716)  87tI-4S03 


/. 


i/.A 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductlons  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreprod 


uctions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notas/Notas  tachniquas  at  bibliographiquaa 


Tha  Instituta  has  attamptad  to  obtain  tha  bast 
original  copy  availabia  for  filming.  Faaturas  of  this 
copy  which  may  ba  bibliographicaily  uniqua, 
which  may  altar  any  of  tha  imagas  in  tha 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


□    Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I      I    Covers  damaged/ 


D 


Couverture  endommagie 


Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaur^  at/ou  pellicula 


□    Cover  title  missing/ 
Le 


n 
n 


n 


□ 


titre  de  couverture  manque 


Coloured  mapa/ 

Cartas  giographiquas  an  couleur 


Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noi 

Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planchaa  at/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 


Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reli*  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  causa  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  re  liure  serrie  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distorsion  le  long  de  la  marge  intArieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certainas  pages  blanches  ajout^es 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  Atait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  4tA  filmies. 


Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  supplimantaires: 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  itt  possible  de  se  procurer.  Las  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-dtre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  una 
modification  dans  la  mithoda  normale  de  f  11  mage 
sont  indiqute  ci-dessous. 


I     I   Coloured  pages/ 


Pagea  de  couleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagtes 

Pages  restored  and/oi 

Pages  restaurias  et/ou  peilicui^es 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxet 
Pages  dicolories.  tachatties  ou  piquies 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  ditach^es 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Quality  inigala  de  I'impression 

includes  supplementary  materic 
Comprend  du  materiel  suppl^mentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 


r~~|  Pages  damaged/ 

[~n  Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 

r~7  Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 

I     I  Pages  detached/ 

PT]  Showthrough/ 

I      I  Quality  of  print  varies/ 

[~~]  includes  supplementary  material/ 

r~n  Only  edition  available/ 


D 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Las  pages  totalement  ou  partieilement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'arrata.  una  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  M  filmMs  A  nouveau  de  faqon  d 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  filmi  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqu*  ci-dessous. 

10X  14X  mi  22X 


26X 


30X 


J.  ,„ 

12X 


16X 


20X 


24X 


32X 


The  c 
to  the 


The  ir 
possit 
of  the 
filmin 


Origin 
begini 
the  la: 
sion, 
other 
first 
sion. 
or  illui 


The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

National  Library  of  Canada 


L'exemplaire  fiimd  fut  reproduit  grdce  d  la 
g6n6rosit6  de: 

Bibliothdque  nationale  du  Canada 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Les  images  suivantes  ont  6t6  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettetd  de  l'exemplaire  filmd,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  fast  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimto  sont  filmis  en  commen9ant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  emi^.^inte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  selon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  film6s  en  commen^ant  par  la 
premidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  —»>  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 


Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaitra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  — ►  signifie  "A  SUIVRE  ",  le 
symbole  V  signifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
filmds  d  des  taux  de  reduction  diff^rents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  dtre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clichd,  il  est  film6  d  partir 
de  I'angle  supdrieur  gauche,  de  gauche  d  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  ndcessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mdthode. 


32X 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

THI 


/ 

CORRESPONDENCE 


UESPECTING 


THE    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


p  Vi 


WASHINGTON: 
GOVERNMENT    PRINTING    OFFICE. 

1872. 


V  \ 


No, 

From 

to 

1 

Gen. 

M 

V^^ 

2 

Mr.  Fi 

8(; 

(Te 

3 

Geii.  i 

M 

(Te 

4 

Gen.  g 

Earl  ( 

Geu.  S 
Mr 


...<1 
(Teh 


Mr.  Fis] 

Sclii 

(Tele 

Mr.  FiNl 

8eli( 


J 


TABLE  OF  COiNTENTS. 


No. 

1 
2 
3 


From  whom  ami 
to  whom. 


Date. 


Subject. 


Gen.  Schenck  to 

Mr.  Fi,sh. 

(IVlegram.) 

Mr.  Fish  to  Geu. 

Schenck. 

(TeU'^^ram.) 

Gen.  Schenck  to 

Mr.  Fish. 

(Telegram.) 


Gen.  Schenck  to 
Earl  Granville. 


1872. 
Feb.       2 


Feb.       3 
Feb.       .5 

Feb.       5 


Geu.  Schenck  to 
Mr,  Fish. 


...  do 

(Telegram.) 


Feb.      10 


Feb.      27 


Mr.  Fish  to  Gen. 

Schenck. 

(Telegram.) 

Mr.  Fisli  to  Geu. 

^clienck. 


Feb.      27 


Feb-      27 


j  Londcm  jonrnnls  demand  withdrawal  of 
claims  for  indirect  damages.  Ministry 
alarmed. 
'  There  must  be  no  withdrawal  of  any  part  of 
claim.  Kepudiation  of  Treaty  not  antici- 
pated. 

Comnnniicates  Earl  Granville's  note  of  3d, 
giving  British  interpretation  of  Treaty. 
"  Her  Majesty's  Government  hold  that  it 
is  not  within  the  province  of  the  Tribunal 
of  Arbitration  to  decide  upon  claims  for 
indirect  losses  and  injuries." 

Kei)ly  to  Earl  Granville's  note  of  3d.  United 
States  will  be  gratified  with  assurance  that 
Great  Britain  does  not  desire  to  interpose 
obstach^s  to  prosecution  of  Arbitration. 
Object  of  United  States  is  identical  with 
that  of  Great  Britain  to  establish  amica- 
ble relations  between  the  two  countries, 
and  to  set  an  example  how  two  great  mi- 
tions  can  settle  disputes  by  reference  to 
Arbitration.  Will  inform  his  Government 
as  to  British  opiniou  regarding  indirect 
claims. 

C<mmients  on  the  argument  as  used  in  Par- 
liament to  sustain  the  position  taken  by 
Her  Majesty's  Government  in  relation  to 
their  interpretation  of  the  Treaty. 

Interview  with  Earl  Granville,  who  states 
that  Sir  Edward  Thornton  had  informed 
him  that  Cabinet  at  Washington  had  re- 
jected Mr.  Fish's  draught  of  reply  to  his 
note,  and  had  taken  further  time  for  con- 
sideration. Earl  Granville  was  prepared 
to  reconmiend  to  Her  Slajesty's  Cabinet 
that  they  should  not  press  for  withdrawal 
of  American  Case  if  the  agent  of  the  United 
States  shall  inform  the  Arbitrators,  before 
their  meeting  in  June,  that  the  United 
Stat<;sdo  not  ask  award  on  indirect  claims. 

lit'liorted  rejection  untrue.  Entire  unanim- 
ity.   Granville's  suj^estion  in.odmissible. 

Referring  to  Earl  Granville's  note  of  l^d  to 
General  fck'henck,  the  President  sincerely 
di'sires  to  promote  an  abiding  friendship 
between  tlie  two  nations  to  which  the  note 
so  hajipily  refers.  Reviews  the  object  of  ap- 
pointment of  the  Joint  High  Commission 
"to  provide  for  an  amid'able  settleinejit  of 
all  causes  of  dirt'erence  between  the  two 
countries."  The  United  States  desire  to 
uiiiiutaiu  the  jurijMliction  of  the  Tribunal 


60 


f^ 


*!  I 


V 
1.1 


l\ 


IV 


TABLE    OP    CONTENTS. 


No. 


From  whom  and 
to  whom. 


Date. 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


10 


Mr.  Fish  to  Geu. 

Scheiiok. 

(Telegram.) 


Gen.  Schenck  to 

Mr.  Fish. 

(Tehiffram.) 

Mr.  Fish  to  Gon. 

Sclienck. 

(Telegram.) 

Gen.  Schonck  to 
Mr.  Fish. 


do. 


1872. 


Feb.      27 


Feb.      28 


Feb.      29 


Mar.     16 


Mar.     21 


Gen.  Schenck  to 

Mr.  Fish. 

(Telegram.) 

Mr.  Fish  to  Gen. 

Schenck. 

(Telegram.) 

Mr.  Fish  to  Gon. 
Schenck. 


Gen.  Schenck  to 
Mr.  Fish. 


April 
April 
April 


16 


April    18 


Subject. 


over  air  unsettled  claims — that  the  ques- 
tions of  law  involved  thtMein  being  adju- 
dicattid,  all  ((uestions  arising  out  of  tlio 
"Alabauia  Cl.iims"  may  be  forever  re- 
moved. 

Comnit-nds  his  reply  to  Earl  Granville's  note 
of  3(1.  Acc(4)tance  of  friendly  assurances 
of  British  not(!,  but  thinks  position  taken 
thert!i  n  unsustained  by  the  history  of  the  ne- 
gotiations l)etween  the  two  Governments. 

Earl  Cirauville  desires  certain  changes  made 
in  language  of  his  proposal. 

Cannot  agree  to  Earl  Granville's  proposal. 
Desire  of  this  Government  to  meet  that  of 
Great  Britain  in  any  honorable  adjustment 
of  the  incidental  question  which  has  arisen. 

Stating  that  he  had  left  a  copy  of  Mr.  Fish's 
instruction  of  27tii  ultimo  with  Earl  Gran- 
ville with  ..igard  to  the  province  of  the 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration  to  decide  upon  cer- 
tain claims  presented  by  the  Agent  of  the 
United  States. 

Transmits  r(!]ily  of  Earl  Granville  of  March 
20th  to  Mr.  Fish's  i  nstructicm  of  27th  ultimo 
to  him,  (General  Schenck,)  and  printed 
memorandum  in  three  parts.  His  note 
treats  npon  incidental  or  consequential 
damages.  Reviews  the  .Johnson-Claren- 
don Treaty.  Part  1  of  the  memorandum 
treats  "on  the  waiverof  claims  for  indirect 
losses  contained  in  the  36th  Protocol."  Part 
2,  "on  the  construction  of  the  Treaty  of 
Washington."  Part  3,  "on  the  amount  of 
the  claims  for  indirect  losses."  General 
Schenck,  in  reply,  states  that  he  will  for- 
ward the  above  to  his  Government  with- 
out delay. 

Asks  wliether  there  is  any  objection  to  British 
Government  tiling  Count(U'  Case  without 
prejudice  to  their  position  in  regard  to  con- 
se(|uential  damages. 

United  States  understand  that  British  Gov- 
ernnuuit  is  bound  to  file  Oounter  Case.  The 
rights  of  both  parties  will  \w  the  same 
after  filing  Counter  Case  iis  before. 

Reply  to  Earl  Granville's  note  of  March  20th 
to  General  Schenck.  Review  of  corre- 
8i)ondeuce  during  and  since  the  then  pend- 
ing negotiations  between  Mr.  Johnson  and 
Lord  Clarendon  for  a  convention  for  the 
settlement  of  the  "  Alabama  Claims"  ques- 
tion. 

Interview  with  Earl  Granville,  who  stated 
that  British  Government  believe  that  a 
general  desire  [»revails  among  the  people 
of  the  United  States  for  the  withdrawal  of 
claims  for  indirect  losses.  General  Schenck 
replied  that  the  Government  and  citizens 
of  the  United  States  were  particularly  de- 
sirous that  the  qpestion  and  extent  of  the 
liability  of  a  neuiral  should  be  arrived  at, 
so  that  the  rule  and  law  for  all  might  be 
known  in  the  future. 


. 

.*            '          1 

& 

^ 

i  ^"' 

Fro  11 

t 

^       18 

Mr.  I 

": 

t: 

10 


10 


11 


12 


U>     Gen. 


20     .Air.  F 

i  '''• 

(Tv 


21      Gen.  i 


Ml 

(Te 


22 


48 


48 


23     Mr.  Fi^ 

i  Scl 

(Tel. 


62 


24     Gen.  fie 
Mr. 

(Tele 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


No. 


lat  tlie  qiies- 

1  bfing  iuljii- 

;  out  of  tlie 

forever  re- 

mvillo'H  note 
y  assn ranees 
isition  taken 
toryot'tlicno- 
veriinionts. 
lianj;cs  made 


le's  proposal, 
meet  that  of 
e  adjustment 
ch  has  arisen, 
of  Mr.  Fish's 
;h  Earl  Gran- 
ivinee  of  the 
jide  upon  cor- 
Ageut  of  the 

ille  of  March 
>f5i7tli  ultimo 
and  printed 
,8.     His  note 
consequential 
lUson-Claron- 
nemorandum 
IS  for  indirect 
otoeol."  Tart 
ho  Treaty  of 
iie  amount  of 
;s."    General 
t  he  will  for- 
rnnieut  \vi  th- 
ou to  British 
ise  witliont 
ojjard  to  cou- 

Britisli  Gov- 
erCase.  Tiie 
1)t^  tlio  same 
efore. 

f  March  20th 
i\v  of  corre- 
le  tlicn  pend- 
Johnsou  and 
tion  for  the 
Haims"  ques- 

who  stated 
lievc  that  a 
Iff  the  people 
ithdrawal  of 
eral  8elienek 
and  citizens 
ticularly  de- 
xtent  of  the 
)e  arrived  at, 
all  mi«;lit  be 


From  whom  and 
to  wliom. 


1872. 
18  •  Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  j  April    23 
Sclienck. 


10 
10 

11 

12 


1!>     Gen.  Schenck  to     April    25 
Mr.  Fish. 


20  ■_  Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  j  April    27 
.Sclienek.  ! 

(Telegram.) 


21     Gen.  .Schcnck  to  '<  April     30 
Mr.  Fisli.  I 

j       (Telegram.) 


22 


.do  .. 


May 


48 


48 


23     Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  '■  May 
Schenck. 
(Telegram.)        1 


G2 


24     Gen.  i^eheiick  to     Mav        7-> 
Mr.  Fisii. 
(Telegram.) 


i 


The  indirect  claims  wore  not  eliminated  from       (53 
the  general  (;ouiphiint  of  the  United  .States.  ; 
Keitlier  tlic  Government  nor  tlii^  Anuuiean 
l)eoi)le  have  ev<u'  attached  mucli  import- 
ance to  the  so-called  indirect  cl'ums.     Tlie 
United  Stati's  do  not  desire  a   pecuniary  i 
award  on  tiieir  account.    Tlui  President  is 
desirous  ot  itrcventing  a  failure  of  the  Ar- 
bitration or  repudiation  of  the  Treaty. 
It  ap|)ears  pr()i)iil>le   now  that  the   I^ritish       (J4 
(lovernnn-nt  will  take  such  course  as  will 
put  an  end  to  the  Arhitratioii  and  to  t\w 
Trciity.     Common    conviction    in    (Jreat 
Britain  that  the  best  and  most  inllueiitial 
men  of  the  United  States  desire  to  have 
our  Governnicnt  recede  from  its  position. 
Neither  in  the  {.'use  nor  in  any  instructions       05 
have  the  United  States  asked  for  |)ccuniary 
damages  on  ac(M)Uut  of  indirect  losses.     It  ' 
is  thought  (wseiitial  that  the  <|Uestion  bo  ; 
decided  whether  claims  of  similar  charae-  ; 
ter  can  in  the  future  be  advanced  against 
the  United  States  as  a   neutral  by  Great 
Britain  when  the  latttir  is  a  belligerent. 
Earl  Granville  states  that  British  (iovern-       fiC 
ment  objects  to  having  Arbitrators  expre.ss 
opinion  on  indirect  claims  when  the  two  i 
Governnie-.its  agree  that  they  tuv.  not  the  i 
subject   of  award.     Sends  draught  of  a  j 
possible   note   from    Earl    (iranvilhs    in  ! 
which  it  is  stated  that  Her  Majesty's  (iov- 
ernnu'ut  adhere  to  their  view  that  it  is 
not  within  the  jirovince  of  the  Arbitratcu's 
to  consider  or  decide  upon  claiuis  for  indi- 
rect losses.  j 
Sends    inti'oductory    part    of    nate    trans-  j     G7 
niitted     by     telegraph    April     30.      Iler  ! 
Majesty's    (ioverniueiit   do   not    wish   to  i 
commence  a  di)il(>matic  controversy  on  the  ! 
subject  of  indirect  losses,  but  merely  to  : 
comply  with  the  desire  of  the  Governnicnt 
of  the  United  States  to  be  advised  of  the 
reasons  which  had  ])roni])ted  the  declara-  j 
tion  made  by  Her  ^lajc.'sty's  Government  | 
on  th(!  3d  of  February.                                       i 
The  President  cannot  Justify  his  assent  to  ,     67 
the  terms  of  the  proposition  of  the  lirit-  : 
isli  (Government,  as  commiinicate<l  in  tel-  i 
egrani  of  30tli  Ajiril.     Hi!  cannot   assent  j 
to  any  i»roposition  which,  by  imiilication  . 
or  ini'ereiice,  withdraws  any  ])art  of  the  ' 
claims  or  of  the  Case  of  this  Government  ' 
from  consideration  of  the  'i'ribunal.     The 
I'resident  adheres  to  the  opinion  that  it  is 
within  the  province  of  the  Arbitrators  to 
consider  and  determine   the   lialiility   of 
Great  Britain  for  all  the  claims  put  for-  | 
ward  by  the  United  States.                             i 
Will  urge  Earl  (iranville  to  modify  his  pro-  ;     OS 
posal.    Asks  for  suggestions  as  to  what  I 
niodilications  would  make  it  jiossiblc  for  | 
the  President  to  assent  to  it.   Api>ieliemls  | 
that,  rather  than  submit  indirect  claims  I 
to  judgment  of  Tribunal,  the  Piilisli  Gov-  ' 
crnmeiit   would  cease   negotiations    and  1 


r 


VI 


TABLE    OF   CONTENTS. 


H 


U 


r 

{•■  -• 
i  ■■ 


fi; 


li' 


No. 


25 


2G 


From  wlioiu  iind 
to  wlioiii. 


Gen.  ScIhmicIc  to 

Mr.  FiHli. 

(Tclcgiani.) 

Mr.  i'isli  to  (Jon. 

!5('lien(;k. 

(Telegram.) 


No. 


Froi 


27 


.do 


28 
29 


Gen.  Sclionck  to 

Mr.  Fish. 

(Telegi'iim.) 

Mr.  Fi.sli  to  (ieii. 

Selienek. 

(Telegmm.) 


30  ,  Gen.  Selienek  to 
Mr.  Fish. 
(Telegriun.) 


31  I. 


. . .  do 


32 


.do 


1872.       I 

make  an  altsolnte  deelaration  afrainst  jiro- 
ceedinjj  with  the  Arliitration.  Asks  if  the 
iollowiiifj;  were  suhstitnteil  tor  that  sent 
on  .\]>ri]  ;i(),  wonM  United  States  yive  its 
assent:  Her  Majesty's  (Jovernmeiit  now 
reatly  to  state  that  if  the,  Inited  States 
do  ajjree  not  to  jjress  for  ))eeiiniary  award 
before  the, Triliunal,  Her  Majesty's  (iovern- 
meiit  will  not,  in  the  event  of  heeomin;;  ii 
lieliifierent  wliih' the  United  States  is  a  neii- 
j  tral,  advance  any  elaims  against  the  United 
I  States  on  aeeoiint  of  any  indirect,  remote, 
{  or  conse(|uential  resnlts  of  a  failure  to 
I  observe  tlieir  nentrality. 
May  6  Trjinsmits  amended  i>ri>]iosal.  Same  snhject 
as  contained  in  No.  24. 

|May  6  j  An  aj^reenicnt  hinding  fntnre  action  of  this 
(iovernment  can  lie  made  only  by  treaty, 
and  wonid  re(|nire  the  assent  of  the  Sen- 
ate. If  Tribunal  decides  aj^ainst  peen- 
niary  damages  for  consecincntial  resnlts 
of  failnre  of  any  nation  to  (diservo  its 
nenlral  obligations,  sncdi  decision  wonld 
be  regarded  as  settling  the  ([nestion  be- 
tween the  two  Governments  in  the 
fntnre. 

May  7  This  Goveitnnent  is  of  ojiinion  that  thesnb- 
niission  of  what  are  called  the,  indirect 
claims  is  within  the  intent  of  the  Treaty, 
and  their  consideration  within  tlie  pro- 
vince of  the  Trilinnal.  The  I'n'sitlent  is 
anxious  to  reach  a  settlement  of  tlwi  iin- 
jiortant  (iiiestions  before  the  Tribunal;  is 
willing  to  consider  and  will  jiresent,  if 
possible,  for  consideration  of  the  Senate;, 
any  new  article  which  may  be  proposed 
by  the  Ib'itish  Goverunn'ut. 

May  7  Apprehends  that  liritish  (Jovernment  will 
declare  against  submission  to  arbitration 
of  ipiestion  of  indirect  damag(\s. 

May  8  '  This  (iovernment  cannot  withdraw  from  the 
jirovince  of  the  Triliunal  what  it  believes 
to  be  entirely  within  tiieir  comjietence. 
If  the  Uritisli  (iovernment  persist  in  tlieir 
demand  for  th(!  withdrawal  by  tlie  UuittMl 
States  of  indirect  claims  the  res|ionsibility 
of  u  failure  of  the  Treaty  unist  rest  with 
them. 

May  9  British  Government,  instead  of  7iro])osing 
new  article  to  Treaty,  prefer  interchange 
of  notes,  and  are  willing  to  further  modify 
their  uoU'. 

May  9  Have  stated  to  Earl  Granville  decidedly  as 
I  to  any  interchange  of  notes  that  the  I'resi- 
j  d(!nt,  Mithont  the  assent  of  the  Semite, 
will  not  go  beyond  the  suggestion  made 
in  your  telegram  of  Ajiril  27.  Earl  (iran- 
vilie  declines  to  have  conducted  at  Wash- 
ington the  negotiation  for  a  new  article 
I      to  the  Treaty. 

May  9  ;  Earl  Granville  proposes  to  modify  his 
j  amended  note,  as  telegraphed  ou  the  6th 
instant. 


33  !  Gen, 

6 
34 


.•!,". 


Gen. 


(59 


r)9 


••JO 


Earl  ( 
Sir 
ton 


I     . 


70 


7ii 
71 


."37 


Gen. 


M 


as 


39 


Mr 


F 

.Sc 
(Tel 


40 


Mr.  Fii- 

Scl 


TABLE    OF   CONTENTS. 


vn 


to 

Pi 


1  iigMiiist  Vf"- 
,  Asks  it' tin- 
or  tliiit  stilt 
lutes  ^ivi-  its 
"niiiiciit  ni>\v 
'nitfd  Stiitt'H 
iiiiiiiiy  iiwanl 

'Sty's  (ioVl'Vll- 

f  riccoiiiiiij;  a 
itatt'sisaiuMi- 
iisttlifUiiitfd 
[in-vt,  n-iiiiitt', 
a   failure   to 

Saino  biiliject 


action  of  this 
Illy  by  treaty, 
iit'of  till!  Seii- 
a^jainst  pecii- 
leutial   ii'siilts 

0  oliseivo  its 
ieeisioM  would  j 
e.  <iuestion  be- 
neiits    in    the 

n  that  the  suh- 
«l  the  iiitliiect 

1  of  the  Treaty, 


'lit 


hill  the  pn>- 

I'resiileiit  is 

of  the  iiii- 

Trihiiiial ;  is 

11  ]ireseiit,  if 

the  Senate, 

ho  proposcitl 


ernnu'iit  will 
to  aihitiiitiou 
ij>;es. 
Iidraw  from  the 
hat  it  helievea 
coiniieteiiee. 
)ei'sist  ill  their 
by  the  riiited 
resi)oiisil)ility 
list  vest  with 


No. 


'.\i 


•M 


:}.-) 


Kroiii  wlioiii  and 

to  wilOIII. 


Gen.  Scheiiek  to 

Mr.  Fisli. 

('i'elegraniO 


Date. 


May 


1(1 


00 


f)0 


of  ^n'o]>osiiig 
r  intevchany;e 
further  modify 


le  decidedly  as 
that  the  I'resi- 
)f  the  Senate, 

restion  made 
>7.  Karl  (iran- 
ictod  at  Wash- 

a  new  article 

to  modify  his 
hed  on  the  (itli 


.do I  May      10 


Gen.  Sehencit  to 
Mr.  Fish. 


■JG  Karl  Oraiivilloto 
Sir  K.  Tlioru- 
ton. 


May      11     /     1 


May      13 


."37  I  (ien.  Schcnck  to 
Mr.  Fish. 


38 


...do  ... 


39     Mr.  Fish  to  Gen. 
Schenck. 
(Telej^ram.) 


May      14 


Earl  (iranville  informs  (ieneral  Se]ien(']< 
that  a  Cabinet  inei'tin<r  will  lie  hi^ld  this 
morning,  and  w  ishes  to  meet  him  after- 
ward. 

Transmits  a  <liau;;ht  of  an  article,  submitted 
l>y  the  Ibitish  (iovernment,  to  the  ell'eet 
that  the  President  will  make  no  claim  on 
the  part  of  the  i;nite<l  Slates  in  respect 
f  indirect  losses  to  tlie  Triluinal. 
loses  copies  of  two  notes  and  their 
accompaniments  tVom  Karl  (tranville. 
Tlu;  tiist.  dated  the  Kith  instant,  re- 
cai>itiilatcs,  in  a  ficiieral  way,  what  had 
recently  jiassed  Itctweeii  him  and  (ieneral 
S(dieiick;  and  tiii;  niemoijindiim  which 
miconipanied  it  relates  to  a  ]>roi»osed  ex- 
chaii;;!!  of  notes  upon  the  snbjecit  of  a  sup- 
plemental article.  The  seeoiid  is  a  brief 
note  ilated  also  the  Kitii,  and  was  accmi- 
jianied  by  the  (haii<;lit  t)f  the  article 
n-fcrred  to  in  his  first. 

Reply  to  Mr.  Fisli's  disi»ateh  of  Kith 
April  to  (ieneral  Sciieiick,  with  a  review 
of  the  arjjfuments  and  corres])oiid»!nce  of 
the  United  States  in  support  of  its  claims 
apiinst  (ireat  Ihitain  for  indire<;t  or 
national  losses  and  injuries  extenilin<; 
,  lieyond  the  direct  claims  of  American 
citizens  forsiiecidc  losses  arisinjj  from  <'ai!- 
tures  by  the  "Ahilianiii,"  '•  Florida,"  "  Shen- 
andoah," and  "(ieoifiia."  Why  tholhitish 
Hi>j;h  (.'onimissiouiMs  did  not  remonstrate 
against  the  presentation  of  these  claims. 
The  nature  of  the  claims  referred  to  in 
the  Treaty  not  left  to  iiiterence,  but  were 
closely  delined  and  limiti'd.  Aryucs  that 
the  Arbitrators  cannot  be  j;(>vern(,'d  in  any 
Itarticular  by  that  p(M'tion  of  tlu^  Treaty 
ih'tininjr  the  powers  of  the  Claims  Coni- 
mission. 


1       92 


May      25 


May      20 


41)  !  Mr.  Fish  to  Geii. 
I  Schenck. 


May      28 


Transmits  ii  copy  of  a  paper  which  ho  read  | 
to  Earl  (iranville  on  the  lOtli,  beiiijr  a  I 
summary  of  vit^ws  of  the  United  States 
on  th(!  indirect  claims.  Karl  Granville 
n'jdicd  that  Ifer  Majesty's  (iovernment 
would  ])robably  conclude  to  take  the  ini- 
tiative and  propoiic  a  Treaty  article. 

Incloses  cojiies  of  corres))on<leiice  between 
liiniself  and  Earl  Granville  in  rej^ard  to 
proposed  identic  notes  to  be  communi- 
cated to  Arbitrators  at  (ieneva,  in  case  of 
new  Treaty  article  beiufj  adopted. 

The  Senate  has  amended  the  proposed  arti- 
cle submitted  by  the  JJritish  Governnient, 
and  advise  and  consent  to  its  adoption 
as  amended.    General ScJienek  is  instruct- 
ed to  inform  Earl  Granville  that,  in  pur- 
suance of  this  acti(m  of  the  .Senate,  the  ' 
President  will   nejrotiate  a   new   article.  ' 
The  article,  as  proiiosed  by  Great  Britain  ; 
and  as  amended  by  the  Senate,  is  append- 
ed. 

Acknowh'dffes  his    dispatch   of    14th,   and      lOJ 
commends  his  review  of  the  (xnestion  of 


98 


9!t 


it 


'I 


h 

5  l!-. 


■; 


!;; 


i; 

rt. 


VIII 


TAIJLE    OF   CONTENTS. 


No. 


4] 


42 

43 


44 


45 


4(i 


From  whom  iiiid 
to  wliuw. 


1872. 


God.  Sclirmck  to  I  May      2S 
Mr.  Fisli. 
(Tclei;ram.) 


Mr.  Fish  to  Gen. 

Schcnck. 

(Tc'lc};nim.) 

Gen.  SfliciKik  to 

Mr.  Fish. 

(Telegram.) 


Mr.  Fish  to  Gen. 
Sclienck. 


Mr.  Fish  to  Gen. 

Schonck. 

(Telegram.) 


Gen.  Silicnck  to 

Mr.  Fish. 

(Telegram.) 


May      2H 

May      28 


May     28 


May      21) 


May      30 


47     Gen.  .Schenek  to  I  May      30 
Mr.  Fish. 


48 


Gen.  Selienck  to  ,  May      31 
Mr.  Fish. 
(Telegram.) 


Subject. 


indirt'ct  claims  as  rcatl  l»y  him  to  Karl 
(iranvillc  a  lew  ihiys  |)revii)iis.  Keasnns 
wliy  the  I'nitnl  .States  insist  on  retaining 
the  indirei  t  claims  hi.-tbr(«  tiio  Triliuiial. 

States  that  Her  ^Majesty's  (ioviMMunent  eon- 
sidcr  tlu)  .StMiate's  delinititm  of  )M'inci[de 
wiiich  both  G()vernni(!iits  aie  in('])ared  to 
adopt  tVn' the  fntnre  too  vagne,  and  jiret'c^r 
the  article  as  they  had  diangiited  it ;  l>nt 
are  willing  to  accept  the  article  as  the 
Senate  pi'opcises,  with  the  sulKstitution  of 
certain  words. 

United  Stales  declines  to  ;igre(!  to  the  pro- 
jiosed  altering  of  the  sui»plenH;ntary  arti- 
cle. 

Transmitstext  of  note  from  Karl  Granville  to 
the  effect  that  Her  Majesty's  Government 
are  not  abh;  to  find  intiie  article  as  amend- 
ed liy  the  .Senate  any  means  or  standard  of 
iiitcrjiretatioii,  and  are  uiniblo  to  signify 
an  assent  to  a  form  of  article  of  wliieh 
they  cannot  discover  the  scope. 

Informing  him  that  lie  told  Mr.  Thornton 
that  no  alteration  of  any  kind  of  the  arti- 
cle as  amended  by  tlui  Semite  could  be 
entertained,  and  that  it  wasnseless  to  <lis- 
cuss  the  j)roi>oscd  note  to  the  Arbitrators 
while  his  tiovernnient  is  contemplating 
any  change  in  tiie  article.  With  r(>gard  to 
the  i)ossib!((  failure  of  the  Treaty  Mr.  Fish 
remarks  that  this  coiuitry  will  staiul 
before  the  world  having  done  all  that  it 
conhl  to  nniintain  it  and  the  eivili/.ing 
principle  whitdi  it  established. 

The  I'resiih'iit  is  extremely  anxious  to  pre- 
serve tile  Treaty,  and  niil(!S8  tiie  innv  arti- 
cle be  signed  and  aiijirovcd  by  the  Sen- 
ate so  tiiat  the  l'resid(;iit's  ratiiication 
may  go  by  the  steamer  of  Saturday,  (1st 
proximo,)  it  cannot  reach  London  in  time 
to  be  exchanged  and  presented  to  the  Ar- 
bitrators on  ir)th  .June. 

Earl  (?ranville  remarks  that  certain  por- 
tions of  Mr.  Fisli's  statement,  iis  contained 
in  his  telegram  of  the  day  previous,  to 
General  Schenek,  were  inexpjicabh'  to  him. 
General  Schenek  stated  tliat  the  article  as 
proposed  by  Great  liritain  coiiliiies  itself 
to  liy[)otlietieal  cases  which  may  never  oc- 
cur, while  the  amendments  of  the  Senate 
ajiply  the  i>rinciple  to  general  cases. 

Incloses  copies  iif  recent  correspondence 
with  Earl  (jranville  already  telegraphed. 

Transmits  the  text  of  a  note  from  Earl 
Granville,  of  tin;  30tli,  to  the  effect  that 
Her  Majesty's  (Jovernment  have  stated 
their  olijectioiiK  to  the  words  proiioscd  by 
the  Senate,  but  do  not  pretend  that  the 
words  snggcsted  l)y  themselves  were  in- 
capable of  improvement.  Earl  Granvilh^ 
sulmiits  to  (iciieral  Schenek  a  draught- 
article,  the  sulistauci!  of  wliich  is  that  the 
President  will  not  make  any  claim  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States  before  the  Tri- 


i 


.»  !>,        I'm 
No. 


101 


l(f.> 
II  li 


>'.>     Mr. 

1       (T 


no      (ieli. 

.^.1      Mr. 
(T. 

.^)2     Gen. 


id:: 


10.-, 


106 


.')3 

Mr.  F 

Si 

(Tc 

54 

Gen.  f> 

M 

(Te 

55 

Mr.  Fi 

Sc 

(Te 

■  50 

Gen.  S 

Mi 

(Tc 

100 

.57 

Mr.  Fi 

114 

Sc 

TABLE    OF   C0NTP:NTS. 


IX 


No. 


I'niiii  w  lioiii  and 
to  wlioiii. 


him  to  Kill! 

IIH.        Kc.'ISOllH 

Oil  i'ctiiiiiiii<; 

0  'rriliiiiml. 
n'liiiuiiit  t.'oii- 

ol"  princiiilo 
;  iircparcd  to 
1',  iiiiil  iirct'rr 
rlitcd  it  ;  hilt 
rticli'  as  tlif 
ih.'ttitution  of 

II  to  tho  i»ro- 
iieiitaiy  arti- 

IGrauvilh'  to 

1  (lovuniuioiit 
eh-  aHaineiitl- 
ir  Mtaiiilard  of 
hh)  to  si;;iiif,v 
do  of  which 
\w. 

\lv.  Thornton 
1(1  of  tilt'  aiti- 
latt!  could  hi! 
nsch'ss  to  dis- 
10  Arhitrator.s 
ontemiilatiii^ 
t'itli  i(><;ardto 
eaty  Mr.  Fish 
will  stand 
no  all  tliat  it 
ho  civilizing; 
1. 

xions  to  prii- 

Itlio  new  arti- 

hy  tilt!  Sfii- 

latification 

itiuday,  (1st 

iitlon  ill  tiiiit! 

d  to  the  Ar- 

Icfrtain  ]ior- 
as  ct)iitaint:d 
pi't'vions,  to 
Icablf  to  him. 
till!  artiilc  as 
Inihncs  itsflf 
ay  never  oc- 
|f  the  Senatt! 

cases. 
Iresitondcnce 
doffraiilied. 
from  iMirl 
elfect  that 
Jiave  stated 
|liro})ost'd  hv 
!iid  that  the 
jes  wert!  in- 
rl  Granville 
a  drauji'lit- 
|i  is  that  the 
I'laini  on  the 
fore  the  Tri- 


101 


J'.i 


lii-i 


III-2 


r>(» 


in:' 


10.^, 


o3 
u4 


106 


Wl 


100 
114 


i8ra, 


Mr.  Fish  to  Oen.     May 
."^fhi'iielc. 
(Telfj^ram.) 


(ieii.  Scheiiek  to      Jiiiif 
Mr.  Fish.  j 

Mr.  Fish  to  (ieii.     Juno 
.'^fheiK'k. 
(Telej;''am.)       I 


Gen.  Schenck  to     .June 
.Mr.  Fisli. 
(■relegram.) 


Mr.  I'ish  to  tien.     .Juno 
St  lifiiek.  I 

(Tcle<;rani.)       ' 
Gen.  Si'lienek  to     .Iiiiio 
.Mr.  Fish. 
(Teh-ram.)       | 

Mr.  Fish  to  Gt;ii.     ,)niic 
Schenck. 
(Tel"j;ram.) 


(Jen.  Schenck  to     .Tune 
Mr.  Fish. 
(Ti'lt'irram.) 

Mr.  Fis.i  If  <';eu.  '  .Tune 
St.lienci< 


huiial  of  Arhitratiim  in  respect  of  tho 
H(!veral  chi'.ses  of  indirect  losses  therein 
ennmerateil. 
'M  Iidorinin;;  him  that  the  tiinn  is  too  liiniti!d 
for  th(!  .Senatt!  to  consiiler  the  important 
chanties  propost-il  l)y  tht!  Hrltisji  (iovern- 
nieiit  to  tile  terms  of  tlie  siii))>lonientaI 
nrtielo.  Mr.  Fisli  has  sii}if;t'sted  to  >Ir. 
Thornton  that  they  sijj;ii  tlii!  article  as 
reeominended  hy  the  Senate,  that  tho  Ar- 
hitration  may  proceed. 

1  '  Transmits  copy  of  Karl  Granville's  note  of 
;{Olh    ultimo,   already  telei;riiphed.     [See 
I      No.  4H.] 

1  The  adjournment  of  tho  Trihunal  withont 
amendiiif;'  the  lifth  article  of  the  Treaty 
would  practically  amount  to  udiscontinn- 
;.nee,  and  tliat  article  cai  only  he  amend  jd 
hy  ii  new  Trt!aty. 
Transmits  text  of  note  from  Earl  Granville 
in  rejily  to  telegram  from  Mr.  Fisli  to  Gen- 
eral Schenck,  of  31st  May,  to  the  e:^eet 
that  Her  Majesty's  Govornnieiit  hold  that 
hy  tho  article  adopted  hy  the  Senate  cases 
of  had  faith  and  willful  miscondiie;  art! 
hronght  within  tho  scojie  of  tht:  proposed 
agrecmen;,,  which  deals  with  pecuniary 
compensation.  Earl  Granville  is  informed 
hy  Sir  E.  Thornton  that  Mr.  Fish  thinks  the 
article  adopted  hy  the  Seiiatocapahle  of  im- 
provement. Ih'itish  Government  declines 
to  sign  a  Treaty  not  in  CDnformity  with 
theirvi(!ws.  Arewill.igtosign  aTrea' yor 
concur  in  joint  application  to  Trihunal  to 
adjourn  proceeding.s  of  Arbitration. 
Relative  to  cases  i.f  hail  faith  or  Avillfiil  mi.s- 
conilnet  held  hy  tireat  Uritain  to  ho  within 
tlie  scope  of  the  Senate  article. 
British  Go\eriimeiit  holds  tliat  after  the  Ar- 
h'.irators  have  rect!ived  the  arguments 
from  the  Agents  on  tho  luth,  they  may 
adjonrn  for  a  time. 
United  States  Government  concurs  in  opin- 
ion that  tilt!  Arbitrators  have  powt-r  to 
adjonrn.  If  argnmeiits  on  both  sides  he 
jint  in  on  loth  and  Great  Britain  move 
for  adjoiiriiiiient,  this  Government  will 
concur. 

:{     Her  Majesty's  Governmeni  of  opinion  that 
j       Arbitrators  must  meet  on  Ifith,  but  not 
necessary  for  Agents  to  present  arguments 
at  that  time. 

Ii  I  Reply  to  Earl  Granville's  instruction  to  Sir 
E.  Thornt'tn,  of  the  llStli  nltinio.  Re- 
fers to  Earl  Russell's  dispatt^h  of  ilareh 
27,  If^GU,  to  Lord  Lyons,  as  proof  that  Mr. 
Adams,  in  a  conversation  with  Earl  Rus- 
sell then  in  alluded  to,  referred  to  the 
"Alabama"  and  other  erniser.s  as  among 
the  causes  teniling  to  produce  the  exasper- 
ation which  miglii.  lead  to  a  war  "  witii 
the  view  to  aid  the  eonfederate  cause;"' 
and  not  to  "blockade  running.''  Shows 
that  the  British  Government  must  have 


lU 


ll.'> 
ll'j 

117 


117 
118 

lid 

IIH 
119 


n, 


Ifr' 

¥ 


llil 


r  ■ 

r.-    ■ 


w 


X 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


No. 


58 


5'J 


00 


01 


From  whom  and 
to  wlioiii. 


Mr.  Fish  to  Gen. 

Schenck. 

(Telegiaiii.) 


1872. 


June 


Gon.  Schenck  to 

Mr.  Fish. 

(Telegram.) 

Mr.  Fisli  to  Gen. 

Schenck. 

(Telcf^ram.) 


02 


g:5 


Gen.  Schenck  to 

Mr.  Fish. 

(Telegram.) 


. . .  tlo 


Mr 


Fish  to  Gen. 
Sclienek. 
(Telegnim.) 


Juno 


Juuo 


June 


June      0 


Juno 


unrlerstood   that    the  United    States   in- 
sisted upon  indemnity  for  indirect  injuries 
anterior  to  tlio  meeting  of  the  Joint  High 
Commission>  and  that  their  ])resentation 
was  not  a  surprise   to  the    Britisli  High 
Commissioners ;    also,    that    the    British 
Government  entered  upon  the  negotiation 
of  the  Alabama  r^nestion  with  a  kuowl-  ] 
edge  of  the  existence  of  the  claims  for 
indirect  losses.    Alludes  to  recent  speech 
of  Sir  Stafford  Northcote,  and  denies  that 
promise  was  given  by  the  American  High  I 
Commissioners  that  the   indirect  claims  | 
were  not  to  be  put  forward. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  dif-  128 
fers  from  opinion  of  Earl  Granville  with  | 
regard  to  presentation  of  arguments  on  ] 
the  15th.  If  an  ad.journnieut  is  contem-  j 
plated  by  Great  Britain  it  sliould  be  nn-  ! 
derstood  that  this  Government  cannot  i 
negotiate  on  a  proposition  which  involves  : 
the  idea  that  it  is  guilty  of  willful  viola-  ! 
tion  of  its  international  duties.  j 

Opposition    members   in   Parliament    h.ivo  I  12(3 
fears  that  the  last  clause  (tf  the  article  is 
not  exi)licit   enough  to  prevent   indirect  i 
claims  from  being  again  brcuight  forward.  | 

This    Government  deals   with    the    British     12<t 
Government,  not  with  opposition  members  : 
of   Parlianu'iit.    If   the    British  Govern- 
ment adopts   the  unworthy  suspicion,  or 
suggests  that  this  Government  will  not  in 
go(»d  faith  act  upon  tiie  agreement  con- 
tained   therein,    all    further    negotiation  j 
must  cease  at  once.    Any  change  in  the 
article  as  agreed  to  by  tlie  Senate  would 
involve  discussion,  and  lead  to  the  defeat 
of  the  Treaty. 

The  British  Government  do  not  adopt  the  loij 
fears  and  suspicions  of  others  witli  regard 
to  the  last  clause  of  the  proposed  article, 
but  defend  it  as  sullicieut.  Transmits 
text  of  three  notes  from  Karl  (iiauville, 
first  of  whicli  relates  to  alterations  in  tlie 
draught-article  proposed  by  tlu)  Senate ; 
the  second  with  regard  to  the  necessity  of 
presenting  tlu?  written  or  printed  argu- 
ments on  the  loth  of  .Fune;  and  the  third 
to  an  a]iplication  to  be  niadi;  to  the 
Arliitrators  to  adjourn  on  the  l.')th,  with- 
out the  presentation  of  tlie  argunuiut  of 
eitluir  Government,  or  to  conclude  a  new 
arraugenuMit  witli  tUv  United  States  for 
the  enhugenmnt  of  tlie  time. 

Intbrmed  Earl  (Jranvillt!  that  it  was  useless     i;!l 
to  exi)ect  tiiat  any  change  can  be  made  in 
the  artidt!  as  agreed  to  by  tlie  Striate.     In- 
closes copy  of  liis  note  to  Earl  Granville 
on  the  suliject. 

The  criticism  by  tlie  British  Government  on      i;W 
the  language  of  tin?  Senate  anieiiduitMit  is 
regarded   as   hypercritical   and    strained. 
The   Senate    and    people    of    tlie    I'niteil 
States  imiiatient  over  the  delays.     This 


G7     Geu. 
M 
Mr.  F 
eral 

(Te 


08 


Gl> 


Mr.  F 

] 
(Tc 


711     Gener 
to] 

(Te 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


SI 


to 


No. 


From  whom  and 
to  whom. 


1-28 


ed  States  in- 
idircct  injuries 
lie  Joint  High 
r  ]»resentation 
British  High 
t  the  British 
ho  negotiation 
with  a  kuowl- 
the  claims  for 
)  recent  speech 
nd  denies  that 
\merican  High 
ndirect  claims 

ted  States  dif- 
Granville  with 
arguments  on  I 
lent  is  contem- 

should  be  nn-  ! 
iiment  cannot  I 
which  involves  i 
f  willful  viola-  I 
ities.  i 

rlianient    have  |  128 
f  the  article  is 
revent   indirect  i 
(lUght  forward.  I 
th   the    British     12'J 
sition  members  ; 
hitish   Govern-  , 
ly  suspicion,  or 
lent  will  not  in 
[igreemeut  con- 
|er    negotiation 

change  in  the 
,e  Senate  wtmld 
id  to  the  defeat 

not  adopt  the 
rw  with  regard 

iDpiised  article, 
t.      Transmits 

•;arl  (irauville, 
crations  in  the 

ly  the  Senate ; 
he  necessity  of 
printed  argu- 
aud  the  third 
made  to  the 
he  ir)th,  with- 

[(!  arguiiusnt  of 
Duelude  a  new 
ted  States  for 

it  was  useless 

an  be  made  in 

Le  Senate.     lu- 

lEarl  Granville 

lidvernment  on 
lam'-'udmcMit  is 

and  strained. 
if    the    rnited 

delays.     This 


1872. 


G4  I  Gen.  Schenck  to  i  June 
Mr.  Fish. 
I       (Telegram.)       ! 


(35 


06 


Mr.  Fish  to  Gen. 

Schenck. 

(Telegram.) 


June      8 


Gen.  Schenck  to  ;  June 
Mr.  Fish.         ! 
(Telegram.) 


12'.) 


07  j  Gen.  Schenck  to 
j         Mr.  Fish. 

08  :  Mr.  Fish  to  Gen- 
eral Schenck. 

(Telegram.) 


Gil 


i:u 


i:w 


June 
June 


Mr.  Fish  to  Mr. 

Davis. 

(Telegram.) 


'  General  Schenck 
to  Mr.  Fish. 
(Telegram.) 


June      9 


Juno     11 


.do 


'  June     11 


Government  cannot  adopt  the  argument 
of  Earl   Granville  with  regard  to  the  put- 
ting in   of  arguments   by  both   Govern- 
ments on  the  15th.    United  States  think 
the  Treaty  requires  it  to  be  done. 
Transmits  8ub.stance   of  note  of  even  date 
from  Earl  Granville  respecting  the  sub- 
stitution of  certain  words  in  the  Senate 
article  with  regard  to  indirect  losses. 
Reference  to  any  conveisation  with  Sir  E. 
Thornton  unjustified.      Have    invariably 
told  him  that  it  was  useless  to  discuss  the 
amendments  to  the  jjroposed  article. 
Transmits    substance    of    note    from    Earl 
Granville   of  even  date,   with  sketch   of 
draught-note     in     presenting    sunnnai-y. 
Earl   (iranville  says  that   if    the  Treaty 
is    to    bo    maintained    an    adjournment 
from    the  15th  instant  has  become  abso- 
lutely necessary.    He  proposes  that  joint 
api)lication  bo  made  to  the  Tribunal  for 
an  adjournment  of  eight  months.    If  the 
United  States  concur  in  nuiking  the  appli- 
cation the  agent  of  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment will  deliver  to  the  Arbitrators  tin* 
summary  of  their  argiunent,  accomjianied 
by  a  declaration  that  it  is  the  intention  of 
his  Government  to  cancel  tln!  appointment 
of  the  British  Arbitrator,  and  to  withdraw 
from  the  Arbitration  at  the  close  of  the 
term  fixed  for  the  a<ljourniuent,  unless  the 
diii'erence  existing  between  the  two  Gov- 
ernments in  regard  to  indirect  losses  shall 
have  been  removed. 
Transmits    coi)ie8   of   correspondence  with 

Earl  Granville,  (already  telegraphed.) 
Earl  Granville's  projiosal  for  joint  ajtplica- 
tion  to  Tril)unal  for  an  adjoriiment  for 
eight  months  cannot  be  accejited  by  this 
Governnient.  This  Government  cannot 
be  a  party,  directly  or  iiidire(!tly,  to  an 
agreement  whereby  (jreat  Britain  is  to 
submit  lier  argument  to  the  Triliiiual  con- 
ditionally. Inform  Mr.  Davis  of  jucsent 
condition  of  negotiation  between  the  two 
Governments. 
Instructs  Agent  and  Counsel  to  be  in  (ieueva 
on  15th.  ]f  necessary,  notify  Arl)itra- 
tors  that  you  will  be  tlu>re  to  di'liver  ar- 
gument and  proceed  according  to  Treaty. 
Should  such  notice  as  Granville's  note  in- 
dicates be  given,  a  decich'd  ])rotest  must 
be  entered  against  any  (lualitied  or  condi- 
tional apjiearance  before  tin*  Tril)unal. 
Transmit  text  of  note  from  Earl  Granville 
to  etfect  that  Her  Majesty's  (iovernment 
will  ask  for  an  adjourmnent  of  tlic  Tribu- 
nal tor  such  a  period  as  will  enable  tliiMii 
to  make  a  supi>lenientary  convention  with 
the  United  States. 
Informing  Mr.  Fish  tiiat  Ik;  has  acknowl- 
edged Earl  Granville's  note,  the  one  above 
referred  to. 


133 


133 


134 


135 
140 


141 


141 


142 


I  ml 

■  I' 


m 


; 


^f 


il 


XII 


rABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


No. 


From  wliom  luul 
to  whom. 


Gen.  Sclunu'k  to 

Mr.    Fish. 

(Telegram,) 


73  '  Gon.  Schciick  to 
ilr.  Fish. 


Date. 


June     13 


74  Mr.  Fish  to  Gcii. 
Schcnek. 

(Teh'graiii.) 

75  Mr.  Davis  to  Mr. 
I  Fish. 

(Tt'li'jiiam.) 

76  '  Mr.  Fish  to  Mr. 
Davis. 

(Telefrnini.) 


Mr.  Davis  to  Mr. 

Fish. 

(Teleyrani.) 


Jnno  13 

June  15 

Juno  18 

Juue  19 


78    ih) 


June     1!) 


70     Mr.  Fish  to  (Jni. 
Ncin'nt'i\. 
(Teh'gram.) 


.IllIH'      -J'J 


Subject. 


1872.       ! 
Juno     12 


be 


Transmits  termination  of  a  noto  from  Earl  '  143 
Granville  of  11th  instant.    IJiitisli    Gov-  \ 
erimient  heliev**  that  th.'y  have  iiK^t  all 
the  objections  which  have  l)een  ad  vanccd  hy 
United  Stftes.     If  the  United  States  be- 
lieve that  certain  cases  are  not  covered 
by  the  last  proposed  form  of  article,  and 
will  state  what  the  cases  are,  there  is  no 
doubt  but  that  the  two  Governments  can 
agree  upon  a  form  of  words  which  will  not 
be  open  to  the  same  oVyection  as  that  of 
the  Senate  amendment.  i 

Transmits  copy  of  correspondence  with  For-     143 
eign  Office,  also  reports  of  proeeedinjfs  in  j 
both  Houses  of  PurliamtMit,   and  articles  i 
from  leading  .j<nu'nals  showing    anxiety 
and  excitement  then;  occasioned  by  immi- 
nent prospect  of  the  failure  of  the  Arbitra- 
tion at  Geneva.     Indosure  6  referred  to  in 
No.  72  is  a  recapitulation  of  the  negotia- 
tions Avhich  have  passed  with  respect  to 
the  sujtplementary  Treaty  article. 

Telegraph  Mr.  Davis  that  if  arguments  are 
filed  in  good  faitii  witliout  offensive  notice, 
we  will  assent  to  their  motion  for  adjourn- 
ment. 

Our  argument  presented.  British  Agent  in- 
struc'  •xl  to  withhold  British  argument. 
Triltunal  adjourns  till  Monday. 

If  thtue  is  to  be  an  adjojuument  let  it  be  not, 
beyond  1st  of  January.  The  President 
sees  no  objection  to  such  adjournnuint  if 
asked  for  i)y  the  <lefendants. 

Th(!  Triiuinal  will,  this  morning,  make  de- 
claration to  the  etiect  that  tliey  do  not 
])ro]iose  to  express  or  imply  iiii.x'  opinion 
upon  the  points  of  ditVerenci^  between  tlie 
two  Governnu'Uts,  but  it  seems  to  them 
obvious  tliat  tiie  ju-oposed  adjournment, 
instead  of  settling  tii<'  cpiestions  in  dis- 
pute, will  have  a  tend(,'ney  to  make  the 
Arbitration  aliortive;  tliey  thcri'foremake 
the  declaration  tiiat  after  a  careful  i)eru- 
sal  of  all  tiiat  luis  beeTi  urged  by  tlie 
United  States  in  favor  of  indirect  claims,  1 
they  Jiave  arrived  at  th(^  eomlusion  tiiat 
tliese  claims  do  i!ot  constitute,  upon  tlie  \ 
l>rincipleH  of  inteniaiioiial  law  applicable  j 
to  such  cases,  good  t'oiindatioii  for  an  I 
award  of  coin])ensatioii,  and  sliould,  upon  ; 
such  princliile,  be  wliolly  excluded  from  I 
the  eonsiderati(Ui  of  tiie.  'rriliuniil.  | 

■L'ounsel  are  of  opinion  tliat  announce  '  l.'rj 
)nent  this  day  made  by  the  Triltunal  must 
be  received  by  tlli^  Uiiite<l  Slates  as  de-  ' 
terminative  of  its  jiidgnieiil  n|ioii  the  (pies- 
tion  of  piililie  law  involved.  Tliey  a(lvis(f 
that  elainis  covered  iiy  this  declaration  be 
witlidiawn  from  fiirtlier  consideration  by 
the  Tribunal. 

Telegraiili  Mr,  Davis  that  the  I'lcsident  ae- "*  l,''i 
eepts  tlii'deelarati(Mi  ol'  tile  Tribunal  as  its 
jiiilgn  'lit  upon  a  (|uestioii  of  imblie  law 
which  he  felt  that  the  interest  of  botliGov- 


ir,(» 

l,-.l 
l,')l 

mi 


No. 


Fron 


SO 
81 


Mr.  1 

(Tt 
Gen. 
M 

(Tc 


82 


^83 


Mr.  Di 

(To: 


J. 


TABLE   OF  CONTENTS. 


XIII 


\     SO 

I  (2 


lotn  from  Earl      143 
Uritisli    Gov-  I 
liavo  lucit  all 

!oii  advanced  by 

ited  States  be- 

•e  not  covered 

of  article,  and 

are,  there  is  no 

veriunents  can 

which  will  not 

tiou  as  that  of 

lence  with  For-  i  1-13 
proceedings  in  I 
t,   and  articles  | 
>\vin^    anxiety 
ioned  by  inimi- 
of  the  Arbitra- 
(5  referred  to  in 
)f  the  ne^otia- 
vitli  lespect  to 
article, 
arfiunients  are  '  !")(• 
)rt'ensive  notice,  | 
iou  for  adjourn-  l 

ritish  Ajjont  in-      l")! 
tish   ary;uuient.  } 
iday.  1 

Mit  let  it  be  not     151 
The  President  | 
idjonrnnient  if  I 


151 


inji,  make  d<^- 
tiiey  do  not  i 
liny  opinion  i 
betwt^en  the  I 

i-enis  to  tlieni  j 
adjonriinient,  | 

'stions  in  (lis-  I 
to  make  the  j 

therefore  make  ] 
carefnl  ])ern-  i 

nry;ed  l)y  the  ! 

idivcct  claims,  ! 

oiH'liision  that  ' 

tiite,  npon  the  ; 

aw  Miiidleablc  ! 

lilt  ion    for    an  j 
sliould,  upon  ; 

■xc'.nded  from   | 

bnnal. 

at    iinnonnco       15'^ 

'I'ribnnal  ninst  ■ 
Slates  as  de- 

n)ioii  the  (pies- 
Tliey  atlvise 

deelaiation  be 

Msideration  by 

I'residenI  ac- 1   \'<-i 
rrilinnal  as  its 
of  iiulilic  law 
st  of  both  Uov- 


;No. 


From  whoiri  and 
to  whom. 


Date. 


Subject. 


80 


81 


82 


83 


Mr.  Davis  to  Mr. 

Fish. 

(Telegram.) 

Gen.  Sc.lKMick  to 

Mr.  Fish. 

(Telegram.) 


.do 


Mr.  Davis  to  Mr. 

Fish. 
(Telegram.) 


1872. 


Juuo     25 


Juiit,     2G 


Juuo     27 


June     27 


ernment.s  required  should  be  decided. 
United  States  had  no  desire  for  a  pecuni- 
ary aw^ard,  but  desired  an  expression  by 
the  Tribunal  as  to  the  liability  of  a  neu- 
tral for  claims  of  that  character.  The 
President  consequently  withdraws  from 
the  consideration  of  the  Tribunal  the  three 
classes  of  indirect  claims  before  referred  to. 

Coiuisel  concur  in  form  of  communication 
to  the  Tribuiuil  of  the  actiou  of  our  Gov- 
erument. 

Mr.  Davis  telegraplis  General  Schenck  that 
he  juformed  the  Arbitrators  that  tiieir  de- 
claration with  I'egard  to  the  three  classes 
of  indirect  claims  is  accepted  by  the  Pres- 
ident. Tribunal  then  adjourned  till  the 
11th  to  enable  the  British  Ageut  to  coui- 
rauuicato  with  his  Government. 

Mr.  Davis  telegraphs  General  Schenck  that 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  United  States 
withdraws  her  claim  for  indirect  losses, 
the  British  Agent  will  request  leave  to 
withdraw  the  application  of  his  Govern- 
ment for  an  adjournment. 

British  argument  filed.  Arbitration  goes 
ou. 


153 
154 


154 


}■■. 


:i 


1$ 


mwu 


London 
jfor  i  11(1  in 
j.alarMied. 

Jortx^nsive 
aopeniting, 


I- 

m 


I  There  ni 
^Dounsel  \vi 
|ernnienc  r. 
I  The  alar 
:^n<l  conten 
#he  treats- 


^il^':: 


ill 

1 

1  •' 

i 

^  Ilesei'vin 
|lsi»Ht('h,  I 
terpretatio 


1    "Sru:  !!( 
|Hie  Case  pr 


1('0R[IESP()XI)EXCE  RESPECTING  THE  GEXEVA  AR- 

BIT  RATI  OX. 


:>fo.  1. 


(Jeneval  Schenck  to  Mr.  Fish. 


[Tcli'ni'iuii.] 

London,  Fchrunii/  2,  1S72. 

I  London  Jounials  all  doiiiiinil  tliat  L^uited  States  shall  withdraw  claims 
Ifoi'  indirect  dania^ifes,  as  not  within  intention  of  treaty,  ^linistry 
lalarnied.  Am  exertinj>'  myself  with  hope  to  prevelit  anything  rash  or 
lotfensive  bein.^'  done  or  said  by  this  Government,  l-^varts  here  co- 
loperatiny. 


No.  2. 
]\fr.  Fish  to  General  Schench: 

[Tclcgi'iiin.] 
I)El'AR'r>rENT   OF   ST/VTE, 

Washinffton,  Fcbnuiry  o,  1872. 

There  must  be  no  withdrawal  of  any  part  of  the  claim  i)resented. 
Counsel  will  ar,t;iie  the  c  se  as  prepared,  nidess  they  show  to  this  (lov- 
ernmenc  reasons  for  a  clian,i>e. 

Tiie  alarm  you  speak  of  does  not  reach  ns.  We  are  perfectly  calm 
an<l  content  to  await  tiie  award,  and  do  not  anticiipate  rejmdiati  )n  ot 
tlie  treat  V  bv  the  other  side. 


^■o. ;?. 

General  Sehenek  io  Mr.  Fish. 

[TL'l.';,Maiii.] 

London.  Fehrunnj  o,  1S72.     (Sent  at  8.;5()  p.  m.) 

Ileservinj;' comment  and  farther  inlbrmation  until  1  can  send  written 
lispat(th,  I  comnuuiicate  (Iranville's  note  givin;.;'  notice  of  IJritish  in- 
terpretation of  Treaty,  as  follows  : 

Earl  Gnuirille  fo  Gcncrnl  Sehenel,'. 

"roREi(i\  Offici;,  Fehruarji ;],  1S72. 
"SiK:  llcr^Iajesly's  Ciovernment  liave  had  undertlieir  consideration 
klieCase  ju'csented  on  behalf  of  the  (ioveriimeiit  of  the  TnitiMl  Stales  to 


■>     r .;  ■■-! 


$i 


9> 

.,•.1(1 


m 

;  I": 

■    i   .   ! 


'&\ 


2  COURESI'ONDKNCH   KESPECTIXU    GENEVA    Al.MJITKATION. 

tlio  Ti'ibniiJil  of  Arhiliiition  at  (Jciicva,  of  wliicli  a  copy  liad  been  pic- 
siMitcdto  Her  Majcsly's  aj^ciit. 

"I  will  not  alliidc,  ill  this  letter,  to  scxcia!  portions  of  the  I, 'iiitt'd  States 
('ase,  whieh  ai'e  of  (MHiiparatively  smaller  importaiK-e,  but  Her  Majesty's 
(Joveriimeiit  are  of  oiniiion  that  it  will  bt^  in  aeeoidanee  with  their  de- 
sire that  no  ol»stac,le  should  be  inteiposed  to  the  prosi'cntion  of  the  ar- 
bitration, and  that  it  will  be  more  frank  and  friendly  toward  the  (iov- 
einment  of  the  United  Stales  to  state  at  once  their  views  respecting; 
ceitain  claims  of  an  enormous  and  inih'titiite  amount  whi<!li  appear  to 
have  been  put  forward  as  matters  to  be  I'cferred  to  arbitration. 

"  Her  Majesty's  (lovernment  hold  that  it  is  not  within  the  province  of 
the  Tribunal  of  Arljitration  at  (ieneva  to  decide  u|)on  the  claims  for  indi- 
rect losses  and  injuries  put  forward  in  the;  Case  of  the  United  States,  iii- 
cludin.n"  the  loss  in  the  transfer  of  th(»  American  commercial  marine  to 
the  Di'itish  lla<j:,  thc!  enhanced  payment  of  insurance,  an<l  the  i)rolon<fa- 
tion  of  the  war,  and  the  addition  of  ji  large  sum  to  the  cost  of  the  war 
ami  suppression  of  the  rebellion, 

"I  have  stated  above  tlieimj)ortance  which  Her  Majesty's  (lOvernment 
attach  to  the  prosecution  of  this  arbitration. 

"The  i>rimary  object  of  the  (Tovernments  was  the  tirm  establislinu'ut  »)f 
amicable  relations  between  two  countries  which  have  so  many  and  such 
peculiar  reasons  to  be  <m  friendly  terms;  and  the  satisfaction  with 
which  the  announ(!euient  of  tiie  Treaty  was  received  by  b^th  nations 
showed  the  strenj;th  of  that  feelin}>\ 

"  JJut  there  is  another  object  to  which  Her  .Majesty's  Govennnent  be- 
lieve the  Government  of  the  United  States  attach  the  same  value  as 
they  do  themselves,  namely,  to  give  an  exam[>le  to  the  world  how  two 
j»Teat  nations  can  settle  matters  in  dispute  by  referrinj^'  theui  to  an  ini- 
j)artial  tribunal. 

"  Her  Majest^N  's  GoverunuMit,  on  their  part,  feel  confident  that  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  are  also  eciually  anxious  with  themselves 
that  the  amicable  settlement  which  was  stated  in  the  Treaty  of  Wash- 
ington to  have  been  the  object  of  that  instrument  may  be  attained,  and 
that  an  exani[)le  so  full  of  good  i)romise  for  the  future  amy  not  be  lost 
to  the  civilized  world." 


No.  1. 

(loit'nil  tSchciirlx  to  Eorl  (h'atirillc. 

]a)c,.\t\os  ov  tiik  Umtei)  States, 

London,  Fchnmri/  5,  1872. 

M\  L()l!i):  1  have  the  lu)nor  to  aclcnowled^ie  the  receipt,  on  this  eve 
ninj;  <if  the  .id  instant,  of  your  m)t(^  of  that  date,  in  which,  after  statin.u 
that  H(M'  ?.lajesty's(Joveinment  have  had  under  their  consideration  tlu' 
( "ase  |)resented  on  behalf  of  the  United  SI  ates  to  the  Ti  ibunal  of  Arbitra 
tion  at  (Jeneva,  you  jirocecMl  to  say  tiiat  you  will  not  allude  to  several 
jiortions  el'  that  Case,  which  are  of  coiiii)arative!y  smaller  imi>ortaiu!0, 
I)iit  that  Her  Majest^s  GoveiiniKMit  are  of  opinion  that  it  will  be  in 
accmdance  witli  their  desire  that  no  oi)stacle  should  be  interposed  to 
the  itrosecution  of  the  arbitration,  and  that  it  will  \)v,  more  frank  and 
friendly  toward  the  ( loxci  iinient  <!f  the  United  States  to  state  at  oncf 
their  \ie\\s  respect inu:'  cerlain  «'iainis  which  you  describe  as  of  an 
eiu)rnioiis  and  indelinit'"  amount,  which  appear  to  have  l)een  jtiii 
lorwar<l  as  matters  to  Ite  referred  to  ar'oitration. 


Vou  i 

is  not  w 

deci<le   i 

in  th(»  c 

the  Am 

))aymen 

addition 

vebi'llioi 

■i       Kelcil 

|atla('li   t 

ft  he   objt 

larbitrati 

r|of  amica 

*such  ))('( 

isatisfact 

l»v  both 

I    'ibityi 

ment  be 

value  as 

how  two 

:,  to  an  im 

Ami  y 

ernnient 

States  ai 

tlemenf, 

*the  objec 

'so  full 'of 

W<U'1(I. 

The  pii 

of  the  oji 

M)f  the  Tr 

,rect  lossi 

'shall  has 

^einment. 

In  tliei 

ment  of  I 

of  the  de 

interpose 

frieiully  t 

^The  objei 

Mi  I  self  in  tl 

Heal  with  t 

of  a  mica', 

wtuld  ;ui 

<lispute  I 

sniv  V(»ui 

carnesMy 

i  was  pro',  i 

jas  Voiir  I, 

f.'promisr  l( 

•      1  have  I 

!U)nlshi!.V 


.V 


ITKATION. 


C01lRi:SP0NDEXCE    KKSPECTING    OKNKVA    AJilSI'IHATIOX. 


]>y  li;i(l  been   [no- 

tlie  l,'nit«'(l  States 
)ut  Her  AFajesty's 
net'  witli  tlu'ir  do- 
'ciitioii  of  the  iu- 
towavd  the  (lov- 
'  views  respeetin;; 
t  which  appear  to 
l)iti'atioii. 
ill  tlie  piovinee  ol 
ho  claims  for  iiidi- 
Tiiited  States,  in- 
uercial  marine  to 
aii<l  the  proh)iiga- 
le  cost  of  the  war 

'sty'sdoveninieiit 

11  establishment  of 

so  many  and  such 

satisfaction  with 

I  by  bf^tli  nations 

4  Clovernment  be 
he  same  vahie  as 
he  world  bow  two 
!<>•  them  to  ail  im- 

lent  that  the  Gov- 
with  themselves 
Treaty  of  Wash- 
be  attained,  and 

■e  may  not  be  lost 


i:!)  Htatks, 

'rhnutry  "»,  IS72. 

cciiit,  on  liu!  eve 

liich,  after  statin.u 
consideration  the 

ihiinalof  Arbitrii 
allude  to  several 

laller  importance, 

that  it  will  be  in 

be  interposed  t(i 

i>  more  frank  and 

s  to  state  at  onci' 

scribe  as    of   an 

have    been     laii 


Vuu  then  <;•()  on  to  smte  that  Her  Majesty's  (iovern.Ment  hold  that  it 
is  not  within  the  ]>roviiice  of  tlu^  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  (leneva  to 
decide  upon  the  t;laiins  for  indirect  losses  and  injuries  put  forward 
in  the  case  <»;'  the  United  States,  iiiclndiiia"  the  loss  in  the  transfer  of 
the  .\nieri('an  «'(imin(M'cial  niaiiiie  to  the  IJiitish  fla^'.  the  eidianced 
])aymeiit   of    insurance,   and    the    i)r(»h»!i,uation   of    tlu^   war,  and    the 

;  addition  of  a  larp'  sum  to  tiie  cost  of  the  war  and  sujiiu'ession  of  the 
vebelhoii. 

iJelerriiiii',  then,  to  the  importance  which  Her  Majesty's  (loveinment 

;;jali.icli  to  the  ])r(»se('ution   of  the  arbitration,  you  j)roceed  to  speak  of 

'the  objects  wliicli  Her  Majesty's  ( Ji)vernmeiit  had  in  view  in  that 
ai'bitration.  The  primary  object,  you  say,  was  the  tirm  estalilishnient 
o!'  amicalile  rehitions  between  two  countries  which  have  so  many  and 
such  ])e('uliar  reasons  to  be  on  friendly  terms;  and  you  add  that  the 
siifisfaction  with  which  the  aiinouncenuMit  of  tlu^  Treaty  was  received 
Ity  both  nations  show»Ml  the  stien,utli  of  that  feeliiij;. 

I  bit  you  say  there  is  another  object  to  which  iler  ^lajesty's  (Jovern- 
ment  believe  the  (loviM'ument  of  tin;  United  Stat(  s  attach  the  same 
value  as  they  do  themselves,  namely,  to  f>ive  an  example  to  the  world 
how  two  f?reat  iiatiiuis  can  setth;  matters  in  dispute  by  referrin<?  them 
to  an  impartial  tribunal. 

And  you  close  your  note  with  the  statement  that  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment on  their  part  feel  (;onfident  that  the  (Jovernment  of  the  United 
States  ai'?  also  eijnally  anxious  with  themsehes  that  the  amicable  set- 
tlement, which  was  stated  in  th(>  Treaty  of  Washinjiton  to  have  been 
the  object  of  that  instrument,  may  be  attained,  ami  that  an  example 
so  full  of  j;ood  promis(>  lor  the  future  may  not  be  lost  to  the  civilized 
world. 

The  purpose  of  Your  L(udship"s  writiufi'  api>earin,i;'  to  be  to  notify  me 
of  the  opinion  which  H<'r  Majesty's  Government  hold  as  to  the  power 

'of  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  to  <lecide  upon  certain  claims  for  iiidi- 
.rect  losses  and  injuries  put  forward  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  1 

'shall  hasten  to  c(»mmunicate  your  note  with  this  information  to  my  (Jov- 

■^ernnient. 

In  the  mean  time,  I  venture  to  assure  Your  IiOrdshi[)  that  the  (iov«>rn- 
meiit  of  the  Uniteil  States  will  be  j;iatilied  by  this  renewed  assurance 
of  the  desire  of  Jler  Majesty's  Gcvernment  that  no  oiistaele  should  be 
interposed  to  the  prosecution  of  the  arbitration,  and  by  the  frank  and 
fri«'ndly  terms  in  which  this  statement  of  their  views  is  made  to  me. 
The  objects  which  the  (iovcu-nment  of  the  United  States  jnoposed  to 
itselt'  in  the  Treaty,  and  the  arbitration  for  which  it  provides  being  iilenti 
<!il  will)  tiiose  stated  by  Your  Lordship — that  is,  the  firm  establishment 
of  amieabl(M'elations  between  the  two  countries  and  the  giving  to  the 
world  ;in  example  showinji'  how  two  Jiieat  natiiuis  can  settle  matters  \u 

dispute  by  referrin.i''  them  to  an  inii»artial  tribunal — 1  can  further  UH 
sur(^  Youi-  li(U(lsIiip  that  my  Governmi'ut  does  reeipri)eate  most  fully  and 
i-ariu'sily  the  anxiety  that    he  spei'dy  settlement  by  arbitration,  which 

i  was  p)-o\iiled  for  by  the  Treaty  of  NYashinuton,  may  be  a(taine<l,  so  that, 

,as  Your  liiuilship  has  eloipu'Ully  e\presse(l  it,  an  examjtle  so  full  o)\L;o(»t( 

?,ipromise  i'or  the  fiUuri;  may  not  be  li>st  to  the  civilized  world. 

s>     1  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  hi,nhestco!isideratiiHi,  My  Lord.  Yoiti- 

'  L)i'(ls!ii)»'s  most  obedient,  humble  sei'\ant. 

KOr.T.  (  .  SCIllOXCK. 


COllRHSPONDKNCl':    HHSl'liCTiyrt    GKN'EV.V    AUIUTU.V  TION. 


No. 


(Iciicnd  Scltrnrk  lo  Mr.  F/.s7/. 


|H 


.1 


•I;  ill 


■a  I 


tlxii; 


v:'i; 


Si 


No.  1  iS.j  LiKiATio.N  oi'  'iiii;  United  Siatks, 

Ldiidot).  Fchniiirij  U\1S72.    (IJcccivcd  Ft'biuiiry  L'."..)  jj^^.^ 

>^  I  j  > .  *  *  *  *  *  #  * 

One  of  llicsc  dchiitcs,  tlu'.v  siiy,  wiis,  in  ])ait  !it  least,  in  tlif  licaiinj;'  of  ^^ 
(lie  I'nitt'd  Stales  Ministei',  who  was  in<'sent  in  liie  House  of  J.ords,  and 
was  doiii>tIess  coniiMiiiiieated  (o  liis  (ioveininent ;  and  all  the  debates  on 
that  occasion  must  have  l)een  <;aiiie(l  to  the  knowledjie  of  the  (Jovevn- 
nienl  of  the  United  kStates  by  the  i)iinted  and  i>nblished  reports,  and 
yet  no  jjn:  rst  or  other  coinniunieation  objectini;'  to  such  interpri'tation 
was  made  by  the  Unite<l  States  to  this  (loverninent.  It  is  held,  therefore, 
that  till  re  was  on  one,  part  an  implied  acquiescence  in  that  nu-aidnj;' 
<;iven  to  the  instrument.  Now,  i  liad  supi)osed  that  tin;  Treaty  havin;; 
been  concluded  and  i)ublished,  and  its  provisions  and  lanyiiaj^e  carryin.;;' 
with  them  their  own  nu'aniiifi-,  to  be  interpreted  with  or  without  resort 
to  tluv  lijiht  supplied  by  the  protocol  aiul  the  history  of  the,  lu'.u'otiation, 
wo  were  hardly  o1)li,ti'ed  to  '^o  I'urther  and  watch  for  what  mif^ht  be  said 
on  the  subject,  7>ro  or  con,  in  a  le;4islative  body  en.^aj^ed  in  dis(;ussion  on 
it.  ln<lee(l,  it  apix'ars  to  nu^  that  renuuistrances  or  criticisms  directed 
from  our  (Jovernment  at  the  speeches  made  in  J'arliament  mi^ht  possibly 
have  been  regarded  as  an  impertinence.  In  this  instance  we  were  cer- 
tainly not  called  ui)ou  to  take  either  the  side  of  Ijord  Cairns  or  of  J^ord 
(Iranville  in  the  ditterence  between  them. 

It  seems  to  be  admitted  even  here  that  such  notice  of  what  was  said 
would  have  been  uncalled  for,  except  for  the  circumstance  that  the  Lords 
and  Members  of  UarliaiiuMit  who  arj^ued  for  the  sauu'  liritish  interpre- 
tation now  put  Ibrward  were  tlu^  [>rincipal  Secretary  of  State  t\)r  Foreiyu 
Affairs  and  two  of  the  ne.notiators  of  the  Treaty. 

It  would  keep  the  diplomatic:  agents  of  tlu^  Uiuted  States  in  Loudon 
and  of  Cireat  Britain  in  \Vashin;^tou  rather  busily  occu[)ied  durinjj;'  the 
sessions  of  Conyross  and  of  UarlianuMit  if  they  were  rcipiired  to  note 
and  rei)ort,  for  comment  or  answer  by  their  respective  (Jovernments, 
whatever  UMj^ht  bo  said  in  those  assemblies,  at  the  risk  otherwise  of 
beiuj;  bound  and  concluded  by  all  the  declarations  made  by  lej;islators. 

In  point  (»f  fact,  so  far  as  I  am  personally  concerne<l,  althoui;'h  of  the 
least  possible  cousoiiuence,  I  can  state  that  1  was  only  lu'oseut  at,  and 
heard,  the  speech  of  Lord  Ivussell  in  tho  House  of  Lords,  and  the  first 
speech  ol  Lord  Granville  iu  roi»ly.  Our  interest  on  both  sides,  as  you 
will  see  from  my  disi)atches  of  that  date,  was  at  that  tinu',  concentrated 
on  tho  ((uestion  of  interpretation  and  defense  of  the  sociuul  rule  in  the 
sixth  article. 

15ut  if  from   silen(!e  is   to  be  argued  consent,  nnirk   how  infinitely 
st)'ouj;('r  a  case  on  this  principle  we  had  aj>ainst  Clreat  Ibitain,  but  whicli       < 
she  never  would  admit  tho  force  of,  on  another  branch  of  the  nef>()tiii-       | 
tion  of  tho  Treaty  of  Washiiifjton.     Near  two  years  and  a  half  alter  the       I 
treaty  of  ISK),  Mr.  liancroft,  then  our  .Alinistor  here,  sent  to  Lord  Pabii-        * 
or  (ton,  then  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Uoreij^n  Atlairs,  a  copy  of  the       ' 
Unite(l  States  surveys  of  the  waters  of  IMijiot  Sound  and  tiu)se  dividiu,i: 
\'aiu'()uvei''s  Island  iVom  our  territory,  accom])anied  by  a  note  in  whicli 
he  said,  "  Your  iiOrdship  will  readily  trace  the  wh(»le  course  of  the  chau 
nei  of  llari>,  lhrou<;h  tlio  nuddle  of  which  our  boundary-line  passes."" 


(Ii'auv 

''  telf'urait 

'■\  replv  to 

;'  sunj^cste 

Miis  note 

i  nu'iit  as 

i  (.'ase  the 

.li'ermane 

here,  l»nt 

with  rea.> 

Avithdi'aw 

Avill  uud( 

their  nun 

direct  cli 

oonsider; 

once  to  a 

I  mad* 

asking'  u.- 

it  could  I 


Kei)ort 
copied. 


No.  llt.J 
■     Sik:  I 


ii.vrioN. 


COIlRr.SPOKDKNrK    KKSl'F.rTTNG    OKNr.VA    AKIMTRATIOX. 


5 


11  tlic  liciuiii.i;"  of 
ISC  of  liovds,  iiiid 
11  tlicdobatcsoii 
L'  of  tli(^  (Jovi'iii- 
lieil  ropoits,  iiiid 
•li  inUMpivtiition 
slu'ld,  tlioivforc'r 
ill  that  iMCiHiinu 
10  Treaty  having' 
myna,<>c  caiTyiiij;' 
u'  without  vesort 
'  the  iK'ii'otiation, 
lat  lui^lit  be  said 
I  in  discussion  on 
liticisins  directed 
lit  inif^ht  possibly 
iince  we  weie  cev- 
Jaiins  or  of  Lord 

of  what  was  said 
ce  that  the  Lords 
Ihitish  iiiterpre- 
State  for  Foreiyu 

"States  in  London 
iupied  durin^u,-  the 
rcipiired  to  note 
ve  (loverninents, 
risk  otherwise  of 
ide  by  le,uislators. 
altiioui-h  of  the 
])resent  at,  and 
•ds,  and  the  iirst 
Dtli  sides,  as  you 
line  concentrated 
iccond  rule  in  the 

rk  liow  intinitely 
iritain,  but  whieli 
;h  of  the  ne<>()tiii- 
id  a  half  alter  the 
"lit  to  Lord  I'abu- 
airs,  a  copy  of  the 
nd  those  dividin.u 
y  a  note  in  which 
ourse  of  the  chau 
dary-line  passes." 


liord  Paliiierston  wrote  to  ^fr.  Bancroft  in  rejily,  thankiiiy'  him  for  tlie 
surveys,  but  not  taking  the  slin!ite-;t  e\'<';'|>ri<»ii  to  the  stateiiieiir  as  to 
the  position  of  the  bound, iryliiie  which  they  have  since  so  liei'ccly  con- 
tested, and  wiiicli  we  lia\t'  had  to  submit  to  ail»itrali<»ii. 

*  -f-  -X  f  *  ■* 

1  have  the  honor  io  be,  very  rcspectrtiliv,  \onr  o'ocdicnt  servant, 

'    KOLT.  (".  SCllKNCK. 
Ilo:i.  IlAMir/l'ON  Fisir, 

SrrirfiU'i/ of  tSI'tlc,   ]V<i\l!li((/l(iii, 


AO.    (I. 

(laivriil  l<i-hcnvk  (o  Mr,  Fisit, 

[Tclf.',!';!!)!.] 


No.  7. 

Mr.  Flsit  io  (Jcncral  iSnioich'. 

['1V1(-t;uii.] 

^VASIIl^'(i■^o^■.  F(hni((ri/  '27,  ISTD. 
IJcjiortcd  rejection   untrue.      ICiitiii^   uiiaiiiinity.     .Vi.swcr  now  Ikmiij 
(•(([tied.     (Jninville's  sn<j;-,u','siioii  iiiadmissibli'. 


Xo.  8. 
^fr.  Fish  it)  (icucni!  SciicacJy. 


Xo.  ILL] 


J)El'Airi'Mi;.\T  OF  Htatk. 

Wd-sliiiu/toii,  Fthntari/  L'7,  !S7l*. 

iSill:  1  have  laid  the  note  from   I'iarl  (Jranville,  addressed   to  you, 


S 


r 


(; 


COllKI.HPDNDKNCi:    IIKSPICCTINO    GKNKVA    AKMIITR.M'IOX. 


1^ 


m 


I    >' 


.  ;i'i'i 


■;:;.:! : 


Ix'ininj;'  date  llir  .Id  (<!'  l''('lniiiirv,  iiistiint,  liclorc  the  I'rcsiilciit,  who 
(liitM'ts  inc  to  s;iy  I  lull  lit'  siiiccicly  (Icsircs  to  pi'oiiiol*'  tliiit  liiiii  wnd 
ahidiii;;  IViciidsliiit  Ix'twccii  the  two  iiiitioiis  to  wliicli  tlir  note  so  Iiji]»|»ilv 
iclVrs. 

It  wiis  iiihUm'  tlic  inspiration  of  siicii  scnlinicnls  tiiat  lie  acccptt'd  tlif 
invitati<in  of  Ilcr  .Majesty's  (iovernnient  lor  the  estal)lishineiit  ol'  a  rioini 
llij^li  ('((inniission  t(>  treat  and  disenss  the  mode  of  settling'  certain 
•  jnestions  ref»'ired  to  therein,  and  snj;',ut'sted  on  his  own  part  tiiat  the 
proposed  eonunission  shonhl  also  hav(^  antliority  to  eonsich'r  the  removal 
of  the  dillerenees  which  arose  (hiring  the  reltellion  in  the  United  States, 
ji'rowinjif  out  of  tln^  acts  committed  by  the  vessels,  wliieh  have  !;iven 
rise  to  the  (tlaims  <ii>n(^rieally  kmtwn  as  tJM^  "Alahama.  (tlaims.'" 

It  was  liis  earnest  hopi;  that  {\\^'  deliberations  of  the  commission  would 
result  in  an  ae(H>ptane,e  by  Her  -Majesty's  (Jovernment  of  the  projtositioii. 
submitted  by  his  direction,  that  ii  f;ross  sum  be  afjreed  upon  and  paid 
to  the  United  vStates,  as  an  amicable  settlement  of  all  ('laims  of  ever\ 
descri[)ti<m  arisin};  out  of  such  diti'erences,  instead  of  the  leiiffthened 
<*ontroversy  and  litigation  which  lie  foresaw^  must  attend  any  plan  of 
arbitration.  He  was  the  mor»^  solicitous  that  such  an  umittable  settle- 
ment, without  the  intervention  of  third  jiarties,  should  be  a(h>pted. 
because  lu^  feared  that  so  thorouj^h  and  eoniprehensive  a  ])resentation 
befor(^  theTribuiml  of  Arbitration  of  the  matters  of  law  and  of  fact  on 
which  the  claims  of  this  country  rest,  as  it  w»)uld  be  his  duty  to  cause 
to  be  made,  mi,t>ht.  for  the  moment,  revive  jiast  excitements  ami  arouse 
unnecessary  apprehensions,  if  not  imi>eril  those  ties  of  inlernational 
kindness  and  j;()od  will  he  so  much  desiics  to  sti'enf>lhen  and  make 
Itei'pelnal. 

The  regret  which  he  felt  for  the  I'cjection  by  llei'  Majesty's  (.'ommis- 
sioners  of  the  projtosition  foi-  an  amicable  settlement  is  revived  with 
;;reat  Unvx'.  by  the  lu'cessity  of  this  correspondence. 

The  pi'oi)osition  foi  a  Joint  Hi.u'h  Commission,  which  was  made  by  Her 
Majesty's  (lovernment,  would  not  have  received  the  approi)ation  of  the 
President  had  he  supposed  it  was  not  to  comprehend  a  consichuation 
aiul  adjustment  of  all  the  differences  <;rowin<,'  out  of  the  acts  of  the 
cruisers;  nor  could  he  have  s'iven  his  sanction  to  the  Treaty  had  it  been 
sujij^ested  to  liim  or  had  he  believed  that  any  class  of  the  claims  whicli 
ha<l  been  jtresented  by  this  (Jovernment  wore  excliuled  by  the  terms  ol 
sidnnission  from  jnesentation  on  the  part  of  this  (Jovernnn^nt  to  the 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration.  Jt  was,  in  his  ai)preciation,  the  chief  merit  ol 
the  modeof  a<ljustnient  adopted  by  the  Commission,  that  it  was  on  both 
sides  a.  frank,  full,  ami  unrestu'ved  suricnder  to  impartial  arbitrament, 
under  the  rides  therein  i)rescribe(l,  of  everythinj;'  that  had  created 
such  difierences.  AVhatcver  de,t>ree  of  importance  mij^ht  here  or  there 
be  attached  to  any  of  these  complaints,  the  President  desired  and  in 
tended,  as  had  tlie  American  Commissioners,  that  all,  of  every  form 
and  character,  should  be  laid  before  the  Ti'ibiinal  tor  its  final  and  abso 
lute  disposition,  either  by  reco.nnition  and  settlement,  or  by  rejection, 
in  order  that  in  the  futur*'  the  liarmony  of  jiersonal  and  political  inter- 
course between  the  two  countries  ini.niit  ncNcr  a.!j,aiii  be  disturbed  In 
any  possible  phase  of  the  contro\  ersy. 

in  his  ()])inion,  since  entry  upon  a  thorough  trial  of  the  issues  which 
divide  the  t  woCiovernments  conid  not  be  avoidetl,  the  claims  for  national 
or  in(lire(t  losses,  (refer) ed  to  in  the  note  of  Karl  (Jranville,)  as  tlie.v 
are  put  ic  rward  by  this  (loverninent,  involve  (piestions  of  i)ublic  law 
whi<'h  the  interests  ol  bolh  (Jovernnients  riMpiire  should  be  deliiiilelv 
settled. 


Therel 
^Presiilen 
itliat  Her 
;of  thcTi 
losses  an 
HisLo 
losses  aii 
jnent — w 
of  the  dif 
in  the  "(, 
^as  losses 
fliecessaii 
|of  all  dil 
|len<>('d   tl 
fTicaty,  b 
;J  diction  u 
w     LTiiad\i 
'fernnu'iit  I 
;ble  to  ad( 
'Treaty  CO! 
lis  of  the  < 
■fdecision  1 
Aviiich  is  I 
Avhicli  wei 
TIiis(k 
of  tlieTi( 
TheobJ 
for  an  aaii 
countries; 
R;.,n'eeinenl 
tieinent,  a 
Ihe  result 
the  claims 
mate  of  t 
tlement,  c 
The  tirsi 
Governm 
adjust  all 
ftll  the  clai 
feii(!ricall.\ 
0f  arbitra't 
Hon  or  r( 
claims  <iro 
bama  claii 
"of  history, 
bunal  of  A 
,   Whatai 
for  the  lirs 
^ally  i)art  i 
'_  It  would 
ticular  i)a.>^ 
their  iidnis 
Majesty's  1 
public  j)ap 
iVom  the  b( 
been  that  t 


,i*- 


["li.M'ION. 


CORRESl'ONDKNUK    KKSI'ECTIXC.    (JENE,  A    AUiaTKATlON. 


I'n'sitlciit.  wild 

(>  tliiit  liiin  Mild 

note  so  liiipi>ilv 

he  iic(('|>t<'(l  tlic 
liiiiciit  ol'  ;i  -loiiil 
sctrliii.u'  (crtaiii 
11  jiart  lliiit  till' 
itlcr  tilt'.  nMiioviil 
ic  IJiiiU'd  Suites, 
lit'li  liav;'  i;ivou 
•In  i  ins." 

)mmissioii  woultl 
■  the  propositioii. 
I  upon  an<l  paid 

claims  of  even 
f  the  lenp'tlienetl 
toiid  any  plan  ol 
I  ainii'able  settle 
luld  be  adopted. 
0  ii  ])resentatioii 
lAV  and  of  fact  oii 
lis  duty  to  euust' 
iiciits  and  arouse 

of  inleniational 
otiicii   and   iiiaUc 

liijcsty's  Coinniis- 
is  ri'vived  wifli 

was  made  by  Hei- 
probation  of  the 
a  consideration 
the  acts  of  the 
rcatyhad  it  been 
tlie  claims  which 
by  the  terms  ol 
)veriinieut  to  the 
the  chief  merit  ol 
at  it  was  on  both 
tial  arbitrament, 
hat  had  created 
H'hl  here  or  tln^re 
desired  and  in 
11,  of  every  form 
;  linal  and  abso 
or  by  rejection, 
nd  political  inter- 
be  disturbe<l  bv 

tlie  issues  whieli 
laims  for  natituial 
ranville.)  as  they 
»iis  of  puliiic  law 
»ul(l   lie  (leliiiitely 


Therefore  it  is  with   inil'ei;iiieil  surprise  and   sineei'e   reL^ret  that  the 

.  J'resideiit  has  received  tlie  intimation,  conveyeil  in  ICail  (iraiiville's  note, 

i<;tliat  Her  .Majesty's  (lovernmeiit  hold  that   it  is  not  williin  the  province 

?'of  tlie  Trilmnal  of  Arbitration  to  decide  U[»()n  certain  claims  forindirect 

'losses  and  injuries. 

His  Lordship,  however,  does  not  assign  any  reason  for  the  o|)inion  that 

los.ses  and  injuries  witli   i'«'si)et't   to  which  tiiere  has  Iteen   no  conceal- 

iiiciit — which  were  i)resenl"d  to  the  llritish  ne,y<)tiators  at  the  openiiii"" 

of  the  discussion  in  prcc'isely  the  sanu!  manner  as  they  are  juit  forward 

in  th(^  "(Jase" — not  as  claims  for  which  a  specific  demand  was  made,  but 

^us  losses  and   injuries  consiMpient  upon  tlie  acts  <'onipIaiiicd  of,  and 

tiiecessarily  to  be  taken  into  e(piitabl(M;onsiderat  ion  in  a  linal  setllemeiit 

Of  all  dillerences  between  the  two  countries — which  remained  unchal- 

jleiijicd   tIiroii;>Ii   the  entire  lu'^otiations,  and   not  reliinpiished  in  the 

;^Ti('aty,  but  covered  by  oik^  of  its  aUeriiati\('s,  are  not  within  the  jnris- 

I  diction  of  the  Arbitrators. 

I  Unadvised  as  to  the  reasoniiiii  which  has  broiij^ht  Iler  INrajesty's  Gov- 
ernment to  the  o|»inion  stated  by  Lord  (! ranville,  the  I*resid(Mit  is  una- 
ble to  adopt  it ;  but,  beinj;'  convinced  of  the  justice  of  his  views  that  the 
Treaty  contemplated  the  settleineiitof  all  lii.' claimsof  the  ITiiited  States, 
is  of  the  opinion  that  he  could  not  abainhm  them,  e.\ce])t  alter  a  fair 
decision  by  an  ini])artial  arbitration,  lie  seeks  no  nieaniiij;"  in  the  Tieaty 
vvhicli  is  not  i)ateiit  on  its  face;  he  advances  no  pretensions  at  (ieiieva 
Avhi(!li  were  not  put  forth  pending'  the  neyotiatioiis  at  \\'ashiiij;lon. 

This  (rovernnieiit  knows  not  where  to  liiid  the  nieaniii.n  or  the  intent 
of  the  Tieaty  unless  within  the  Treaty  itself. 

The  obje(!f  of  theTreaty,  asdeclared  in  its  preamble,  was  "to  provide 
for  an  amicable  setrlemeiit  oi'  all  causes  of  (liflerenc<'.  between  ilie  two 
countries;"  but  tlu^  Treaty  is  not,  of  itself,  the  settlement;  it  is  an 
Rj.(reeinent  between  the  (iovei-nineiits  as  to  the  mode  of  reaching;"  a  set- 
tlement, and  its  Article  \I  enua.iics  the  coiitra(!tiii^'  ])arties  to  (consider 
fche  result  of  the  arbitration  as  a  full,  jierfi'ct,  and  linal  settlement  of  all 
the  claims.  Tutil  that  be  reached.no  protVer  of  withholdin.i;'  an  esti- 
mate of  th(^  indirect  losses,  dependent  on  the  hope  of  an  amicable  set- 
tlement, can  be  claimed  as  a  waiver  or  an  estopp(»l. 

The  first  arti(;le  recites  that  ditfereimes  have  arisen  between  the  two 
Governments,  and  still  exist,  and  i»rovides,  '•in  onh'r  to  remove  and 
adjust  all  complaints  and  claims  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  that 
ftU  the  claims ///•o/r/»;/  out  of  acts  committetl  by  tin;  aforesaid  vessels,  and 
generlcally  known  as  the  'Alabama  (daiins,*"  be  referred  to  a  tribunal 
pf  arbitration,  to  be  (iomposcid  as  therein  provided.  There  is  no  limita- 
tion or  restriction  to  any  part  or  description  of  thi^  claims.  .1//  the 
claims  firowinji'  out  of  certain  acts,  and  generically  known  as  the  "xYla- 
baiiia  claims,"  were  referred.  What  they  were  is  a  (|ueslioii  of  fa(!t  and 
of  history.  Which  of  tin  iii  are  well  founded  is  a  (lueslion  for  the  Tii- 
bunal  of  Arbitration. 

,  What  are  called  the  indirect  losses  and  claims  are  not  now  put  forward 
for  the  lirst  time.  For  years  they  have  been  prominently  and  histori- 
cally part  of  the  "Alabama  claims," 
_  It  would  be  su])ertlii!)us  to  cpiote,  or,  perhaps,  even  to  refer  to,  par- 
ticular passajL-es  in  the  i)ublislicd  instructions  of  this  (lovernment  to 
their  minister  to  Cireat  Ibitain  ;  in  the  notes  of  that  minister  to  llev 
Majesty's  Principal  Secretary  of  State  for  F(n•ei.^u  Affaiis;  or  in  other 
public  papers,  to  show  that  the  expectation  of  this  ( Jovernnient  has, 
troiii  the  be^inninp:  of  the  acts  whicii  .yave  rise  to  the  "Alabama  claims," 
been  that  the  IJritish  (loveriiinent  woiihl  indeinnifv  the  United  States. 


'1^' 


II  f 


ll 


14: 


m 


f..  :;.  >» 


■  <',  if- 

I- 1' , 


%. 

«  I- 


8  COUKESrONDKNCi:    RKSPl'X'TING    GKNKVA    AUlUTliATION. 

Iiicidi'iitiil  or  ('<»iiH('(|iU'iitial  (liiiiiiij-cs  wcic  oltcii  iiiciitioned  as  includiMl 
ill  tlic  iiccoiiiitiilulil.v. 

Ill  llic  i»i();ui('ss()t' llic  ;icts  wliifli  j^avc  rise  (o  tli(!  claiiiis,  Iiioli  IJrilisli 
antli(»iity  was  not  waiitiuji' to  warn  llcr  Majrsty's  (Jovciiiiiiciit  in  t!n' 
llonsc  ol"  ('oiiiiiioiis  llial  "(lic.v  Iiad  been  inllictiiiJL^'  an  aiiioiint  of  daiiia;;(' 
on  that  coiintiy  (the  United  States)  ;;i'('ati'r  tiiaii  would  l)i'  produced  Ity 
many  ordinary  wars,"' and  to  indicate,  as  part  of  tliat  dania;;e,  the  h>sses 
to  \vh()se  preseiitidioii  exception  is  now  taken. 

Pnhlic  men  in  l»ot!i  countries  discnssed  tliem,  wiiile  the  public  pres- 
on  t!ie  one  side  and  on  the  other  advanced  and  combated  them  with 
an  eaiiieslness  and  warmth  that  Inoujuht  them  into  a  ])ro]niueiice  lie- 
yoiid  the  direct  losses  and  iiijui'cs  sustained  by  indi\i(bials. 

A  (h'taih'd  statement  oi'  their  claims,  enumerating;'  and  settinj;'  t'oi'Ii 
the  indirect  losses  juecisely  as  they  are  advanced  in  tin'  Case,  was  sub- 
mitted by  the  American  negotiators  to  the  Joint  Ili;';h  ('((iniuission  in 
the  lirst  discussi(»u  ottlic  claims,  on  the  sth  day  of  .March,  and  a[>)tear.s 
in  the  I'rotocol,  approved  oi.  the  Itli  day  of  May. 

Jler  31ajesty"s  (i(tvcrnment,  therefore,  cannot,  in  the  absence  of  any 
speeitic  eNclusion  of  these  daiuaj^'es  by  the  Treaty,  be  said  to  l)e  taken 
unawares  by  their  ]ueseutation  to  the  Triltunal,  and  the  I'resideiit  was 
not  at  liberty  to  rej^ard  as  withdrawn  or  settled  any  of  the  (tlaims 
enumerati'd  in  a  statement  i)repared  and  ap])rii\('d  by  the  Joint  llij^ii 
Commission  after  their  dis(;ussions  were  closed,  and  within  four  days  of 
the  sij;nin,i;'  of  a  treaty  which  declares  that  the  ditferema'S  which  had 
arisen  with  I'csix-ct  to  the  "Alal)ama  claims''  still  exist.  Appearinji 
thus,  fnuii  whatever  cause,  not  to  have  been  eliminated  Irom  the 
cnumeiated  claimsof  the  United  States,  the  I'resideiit  had  not  the  ])ower. 
of  his  own  accord,  to  withhold  them  from  the  Case  to  be  presented  to 
tlie  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  ;  but  in  frankness  and  in  sincerity  of  i)ur- 
])ose  to  remove,  in  the  spiiit  of  the  Treaty,  all  causes  of  differem^e  be- 
tween the  two  (.lovernmeiits,  he  has  set  them  forth  before  the  (Jeiievii 
Tribuualj  content  toaccet)t  any  award  that  theTiibunal  may  think  lit  to 
make  on  their  account. 

Jt  is  within  your  personal  kii()wled<;e  that  this  (Joverniiient  has  never 
expected  or  dcsiix-d  any  iiiireas()nal)le  ])e(;nuiary  compensation  on  their 
aci'ount,  and  has  never  cnteitained  the  visionary  thou;;lit  of  such  an 
extrava.uant  measure  of  damajU'cs  as  finds  expression  in  the  excited  laii- 
yuaj^e  of  the  iJritish  i)ress,  and  seems  most  umuH'ountably  to  have  taken 
])Ossession  of  the  minds  of  some,  even,  of  the  statesmen  of  Great 
Britain. 

A  mixed  conimission  is  now  in  session  in  this  city,  nnder  the  Treaty, 
to  which  are  referred  all  (tlaims  o<"  citizens  or  subjects  of  either  power 
(other  than  Alabama  claims)  which  arose  out  of  acts  committed  during 
ji  specitied  jieriod. 

In  the  correspondence  which  ]»receded  the  aii'reement  for  tlu^  meeting;' 
of  the  Joint  Ili^'h  Commission  which  ne.u'otiated  the  Treaty,  lan<4ua,i:i' 
was  purposely  agreed  upon  and  nsed  to  exi)ress  the  idea  which  the  rep 
resentatives  of  the  two  Governments  ent(!rtained,  that  no  claim  founded 
on  contra(;t,  and,  especially,  no  claim  on  account  of  the  rebel  or  confetl 
erate  cotton  (h'bt,  was  to  be  i)resented.  Similar  laii,i;ua<;e,  and  for  the 
same  avowed  and  admitted  purjiose,  was  used  in  the  Treaty. 

Anioiiy  other  claims  of  an  unexiiected  character  luesented  by  the 
agent  of  the  JJritish  Government, there  was  one  for  a  part  of  the  confed- 
erate debt,  which  is  undeistood  to  be  held  in  Great  IJritaiii  to  tln' 
extent  of  many  nnllions.  Jmmediately  (ui  its  ju'csentatioii  the  United 
States  remonstrated,  and  requested  the  IJritish  Government  to  instruct 


CO 

-their  aj;t' 
Jtheir  reii 
iGoxcrnm 
land  the  c 
lltefore  tin 
*jiiid  the  d 
claiiiiaiit. 

The  at  t 
fiice  in  fa 
t(»  I  lie  niK 
<;Vitli  rete 
eiilrd. 

The  Un 

The  (MM! 
uiylif  lia\ 

They  <!< 
^tion  o\  er  : 
and  the  (|i 
tions  com 
iu^  out  of 
^K)ssibilit> 
"two  count 
I  The  I're 
ntetween 
B^reaty. 
f  Jle  indu 
'lias  been  < 
'Of  dilferei 
incidental 
prive  the 
two  jiowei 
passions,  ; 
Of"  a  disini 
'  1  ai 

General 


Ko.  14.J.J 

I  have  t( 

*n]iy  of  E, 

jcep\y. 

'»   Your  am 

and  ])ru(h'i 

You  will 

the  opinioi 

raised  by  I 

JUakedly*  ai 

I    Althougl 


M!.:'K 


m 


ITUATION. 


COlMUvSroNDKNCK    HKSI'KCTINC    OKNKVA    AIJMITUATION. 


!) 


ioiied  as  iiicliidcd 

liiiis,  lii;;h  Hiitisli 
ivci'iiiiicitt  ill  tlif 
mount  ul'  diiiiui^i' 
il  lie  piodiK'cd  l»y 
iitiia^t'.  tlui  losses 

I  lie  public-  i>i'('ss 
bated  tliciii  with 
il  |)roiuiiK'ii('('  be- 
duals. 

Hid  scttiii.n'  i'oi  'il 
ic  ( 'asc,  was  sub- 
Il  ('oiiiiiiissiou  ill 
ircli,  and  apjiears 

(■  absence  of  any 
'  said  to  be  taken 
lie  I'l'esideiit  was 
iiy  of  tli(!  clainis 
»y  tlie  fJoiid  Ili^Ii 

illiiii  Ibiii'  daysol 
•eiiees  wliicli  had 
'\isf.  Appearinj^ 
linated  from  the 
lad  not  tlie  power. 
()  be  jneseiited  to 
I  sincerity  of  pur- 

of  ditfereiHie  be- 
K'fore  the  (lenevu 
il  may  think  lit  to 

niinent  has  never 
leiisatioM  on  their 
on;;ht  of  such  an 
n  the  t'xcited  Ian- 
ibly  to  have  taken 
tesinen    of  (Jreal 

under  tlie  Treaty. 
s  of  either  jjowei 
L'oniniitted  diirinu 

it  for  the  nieetin;: 
Treaty,  lan.i4ua.i:i' 
ea  which  the  rep 
no  claim  I'oiuuh'd 
le  rebel  or  confetl- 
uaj^e,  and  for  tlu- 
Treaty. 

])resented  by  tlir 
>art  of  the  con  led- 
at  Uritain  to  tlif 
tation  the  United 
ninent  to  instriut 


'their  aj^eiit  to  withdraw  that  claim.     'I"lieir  renionslraiic(^  was  unheeded; 

their  re(|iiest   was  not  answered.     If  any   iiist ruction  was  j;iv«'ii,  this 

j*i<lo\  ('rnmeiit   was  not   informed  I  hereof,  and   it    faih'd  to  lie  ()l»ser\ed: 

|jiiid  the  claim  was  jircssed  to  ariiiiineiil,     'I'lie   I'aited  Stales  deiiiiirred 

^before  the  commission  to  its  Jurisdiction  over  claims  of  that  description, 

jind  the  decision  (d'  the  commission  disposed  of  the  case  adverse  to  tlu^ 

claimant. 

The  attitude  id"  the  two  (lovernnn'iits  is  now  reversed,  with  the  dilfer- 
eiice  ill  favor  of  the  Tnited  Stales,  that  tliere  was  no  fiuestion  raised  a;, 
to  the  iindeistaiidiii.'X  of  b(»tli  ( lo\  eiiimenis  at  the  date  of  the  Treaty, 
villi  referfi-'e  to  tli<'  exclusion  of  <'laiiiis  of  I'le  cliiuacter  tlr'.i  pre- 
i^eiilfd. 

riie  I'liitetl  Stales  seek  not  to  be  the  judii'e  in  their  own  case. 

The  course  which  they  inirsued  afforded  ii  ha}>py  solution   to   what 
Jiiiulit  lia\('  becM  a  (piestioii  of  embarrassmeid. 

if  They  d.esire  to  iiiaintain  the  jursdictioii  of  llie  Tribunal  ol  .Vi'bitra- 
'tion  o\er  all  the  unsettled  claims,  in  order  that,  lii'ln;;' judicially  leeided, 
and  the  (juestions  of  law  involved  therein  bein;;'  adjudi<'ated,  all  (pies- 
tioiis  coniK'cted  witli  or  arisin;;  out  of  tlni  Alabama  claims,  or  "  jj.row- 
in.L;' out  of  the  acts"  (d'  the  cruisers,  may  be  forever  removed  f''om  the 
liossibility  ()f  disturbing  the  perfect  lianuoiiy  of  relations  between  the 
two  countries. 

The  President  reri'refs  tliat  thieve  should  be  aiiv  dill'ereiice  of  opinion 
'between  the  two  (ioxcrnmciils  on  any  ([uestion  connected  with  the 
Treaty. 

■  lie  iinbilu'cs,  however,  the  earnest  hoj);'  that  the  disp(^sition  which 
lias  been  <'<pially  iiianifesled  by  both  <  io\ernments  to  i^'inove  all  causes 
'of  difference  between  tiu'iii  will  brinj^'  them  to  an  a;^ieement  iipoa  the 
incidental  (piestion  which  has  arisen,  and  will  allow  no  obstacU;  to  de- 
prive the  woi'ld  of  tll(^  e.\ami)le  of  ad\aiiced  civilization  ju'esented  by 
tMo  ])owerful  States  exhil)itiii,i;'  the  supremacy  of  law  and  of  reason  over 
pi'.ssions,  and  deferring  their  own  Jiidyiiierds  to  the  calm  interpretation 
of  a  disinterested  and  (liscriniiiiatin;.i'  tribunal. 
1  am,  sir,  vour  obedient  servant, 

IIAMILTOX  FISH. 

(leiieral  IIOUEUT  ('.  SoilENClc,  dr.,  dr.,  dr. 


Xo.  i> 


?.Ii:  Fish  to  (Jcncral  Si-licnck. 


Ko.  115.] 


JJ1:i'A!M'3ii:nt  or  Statj:, 

]V((sluii(jtoit,  Fcbniurij  117,  l<S7l*. 
I  have  to  acknowledno.  your  No.  l-"}'),  of  date  of  February  (5,  inc.losin,!;- 
CO])y  of  Earl  (Jranville's  note  to  you  of  the  .'Jd  iusiaiit,' and  of  your 
i'e])Iy. 

»    Your  answer  to  F^arl  Granville  is  marked  with  your  usual  intellij-'cuce 
aud  ])riidence,  and  meets  the  warm  approval  of  the  rresideiit. 

You  will  receive  herewith  adispatch  of  the  same  date  with  this,  <>i\  iiiff 

the  opinion  of  this  Uovennnent  on  the  cpu'stion  suddenly  and  abrupt ly 

raised  by  Her  :\[ajesty's  (rovermnent,  and  presented  by  Fail  Granville 

nakedly  and  without  any  ai'/;ument. 

J    Although  no  reply  is  invited  by  the  note  of  the  British  Government, 


r 


10 


CORKESrONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITKA.TION. 


mi 


m 


... 

:f 


I 

[ik 

m 


'■m 


m 


K    'U 


m 


till'  soflU'iiu'iit  of  iill  cansos  <»i"  (lillt'i'tMice  botweeii  the  two  countries, 
juid  tilt!  succi'ssrul  example  of  tlie  inoilf  of  si'ttliiij,'  iiitoiniational  dilfer- 
oiict's  «'stal)lisli(Ml  by  the  Treaty,  ar(»  so  earnestly  desired  by  this  (lovern- 
Dieiit,  that  we  aecept  tiie  fiieiidly  assuraiieos  of  the  British  note,  disre- 
{i'ardiiij;'  its  bold  and  siubh'ii  announ<!einent  of  an  opinion  which  we 
think  unsnstained  by  tln^  history  of  the  negotiations  between  the  two 
(ioverunients,  or  by  tiie  events  which  j^ave  rise  to  the  (ilainis,  and  f( 
which  we  see  no  lo^^ical  foundation  in  the  Treaty  itself. 

Yoii  will,  therefore,  read  the  dispatch  referred  to  to  Lord  (rranville 
and  may  leave  with  him  a  copy  in  (;as«  ho  desires  it. 
1  am,  sir,  >our  obedient  .servant, 

ija:\iilt()x  fksit. 

(leneral  IJoukri'  ('.  Sciiknck,  <(r.,  dr.,  dr. 


:ov 


^'o.  10. 


(iCiH'ntI  >SV7/c«<7i'  to  Mr.  Fisli. 


flclfiriiim. 


L<>M)<)>',  Fihni(iy)f  L'8,  1872.  (Sent  ."i.K*  p.  m.) 
(Iranville  desires  me  to  send  change  of  lan;4na,u"e  of  his  jjroposal,  as 
follows:  After  woi'd  dune,  substitute  "that  the  United  States  donotask 
the  Arbitrators  t(»  a(bnit  ()r  take  into  their  consideration  these  imbrect 
claims,  either  as  elements  for  the  detei'mination  of  anyone  sum  in  ji;ross 
which  they  may  award  in  (tase  of  decision  against  Great  IJritain  on  the 
point  of  liability  for  any  of  the  vessels,  or  otherwise.  And  that  in  case 
of  damages  beinj;'  referred  to  assessors,  they  will  not  bring' forward  these 
<'laims  before  the  assessors.'' 

This  variation  of  words  does  not  seem  to  me  to  change  meaning. 


Xo.   11, 


^1//'.  /V,s7/  i<>  (ioKidl  SclioicL 


!  'l'('lc,nr;nii. 


I)i;i'Al!'r>IENT   Ol"   Si'ATE, 

M'd.sliiiujtoii,  Ft'hru((rn '2\),  1S72. 
Cannot  agree  to  (Iranville's  i)roi)osal  as  nmde.  Desire  to  met^t  the 
Ib'ilish  (lOvtMiuuent  in  any  honorable  adjustment  of  the  incidental 
<pies(ion  which  has  arisen.  Our  answer  is  very  friendly,  and  will,  we 
hope,  open  (he  way  for  a  settlenwMit.  Whatever  the  IJritish  Commis- 
sioners may  lia\i'  iufeiKb'd,  oi' thoiiglil  among  themselves,  they  did  not 
eliminate  the  claims  for  indirect  losses,  they  never  asked  us  to  withdraw 
them,  n(»r  didtliey  i'.llude  to  them  dire(!tly,  or  in  plain  terms;  and  after 
tluMlelibeialions  of  the  doiiit  Comini?!sion  were  clf)sed,  Tenlerden  anil 
till'  lirilisli  Cjinmissioncrs  allowed  tlicin  to  l»e  formally  enumerated  in 
statement  of   llli  .Mav  without  a  word  of  dissent. 


%o.  17'.'. 


On  th 
and  wit 
tiew  wit 
him  ac(|i 
Commun 
anxiety. 

]'\)IIo\\ 

ilig  that, 
jto  their 
iccomp: 
the  <-lain 
iJeneva  < 
to  decide 
tlement  < 
fnl  carry 
pie  of  a  I 
difliciiltit 
of  tlie   fr 
liad  comi 
n.nd  view 
they  had 
read  to  h 
him  a  co] 
,   lie  ren 
rai'st  kiH) 
the  sulijei 
me,  ther( 
copy,  I  h 
him  that 
Thi.s.  (»f  c 
ilig  him  t 
riedly  cal 
]>efore 
til  at  as  II 
perhaps  j 
and  what 
any  time 
two  cou.. 
thought  t 
unoflicial 
Complieat 
him  in    s 
propriety 
iiiterconr 
fullv,  as  I 
I  ha\ 

II. m.  II 


IBITRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


11 


the  two  countrios, 
ntcnuilional  ditt'er- 
'0(1  by  this  (Jovern- 
IJritish  note,  disir- 

opinioii  wliicli  \vc 
IS   bl'tWCMMl  tlio  two 

the  chums,  and  for 
to  Lord  (rniiiviUe, 


:\nLT()y  fish. 


(Sent  0.4:0  p.  ni.) 

of  his  proposal,  as 
'd  States  do  not  ask 
ition  these  indirect 
lyone  snni  in  jjross 
leat  lii'itain  on  tho 
And  tliat  in  case 
niny:  fiu'ward  tiiese 

inu'e  nuMnin"'. 


I'VE, 

iriKoi/  LM>,  ISTl*. 

sire  to  nie(>t  tlic 
)\'  the  ineich'tital 
idly,  and  will,  we 
IJiitish  Comiiiis- 
Ives,  tiiey  did  not 
cd  ns  to  witiidraw 
terms;  and  after 
1,  Teiiterden  and 
Iv  eiiuineraled  in 


I 

Ito.  I7!». 


No.  12. 

(iouTdl  tichenclc  In  Mr.  Fish. 
[Extrai't.l 

liEC  ATIDX  or  THE  1'MT]:1)  STAI'ES, 
JmiuIoii,  March  Id,  l.STU.     (Ueeeixed  A|)ril  1.) 


On  llie  day  of  the   rcccjttion  of  yonr  note  of  the  L'Tth  ol'  l'\'t>rnary, 

tiiid  within  a  few  honrs  after  its  arri\  al,  1  was  cnaltled  to  have  an  inter- 
view with  Lord  (iranville  at  the  Forei.nn  Ollice,  with  a  view  t»»  niakin.;; 
||ini  aetpiainted.  a^ii-eahly  to  your  iiistrnetioiis,  with  its  conti  nts.  Yonr 
jniinnnication  had  been  looked  for  l»y  tiie  (iovernment  In-re  wirh  great 
nxicty. 
f  roilowinu'  in  siilistanee  tiie  laiisiiia,!:,'!'  of  yonr  No.  I !."»,  1  l>e;;an  by  say- 
ki\ii  liiat,  altlionjj;li  llerMaJesty's  (iovernment  iiad  not  inviteil  any  reply 
fo  tiieir  note,  but  had  been  content  to  make  a  naked  annouiiecmeiit,  un- 
accompanied by  reasons  or  ar<i'iiment,  <tf  tlicir  opinion  that  certain  of 
file  claims  put  forward  by  the  United  States  in  their  Case  presented  at 
IJeneva  did  not  come  uithin  the  jirovince  of  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration 
|o  decide,  yet  siudi  was  the  earnest  desire  of  my  (iovernment  foi'  a  set- 
tlement (»f  all  dilferences  between  the,  two  countries,  end  for  the  success- 
iiil  carryiii.u'  out  of  a  treaty  which  (tffered  to  the  world  so  liood  an  exam- 
%1(»  of  a  ]ieaceful  and  eifective  method  for  the  removal  of  international 
llilliculties,  that  tlu'  ['resident  was  most  ready  to  accept  the  assurances 
f>f  the  friendly  feel iii,i;s  \vhich  had  prompte(l  that  note;  and  that  you 
^ad  communicated  to  me  in  a  dispatch,  with  some  fullness,  the  opinion 
rtiid  views  of  the  ( Jovernnieiit  of  the  L'uited  States  on  tiie  [loint  which 
they  had  raised.  I  said  also  to  Lard  (Iranville  that  1  was  authorized  to 
read  to  him  the  dispatch  refeired  to,  and,  if  he  desired  it,  tv>  leave  with 
him  a  co]»y  of  it. 

■  lie  remarked  to  me  that,  beiii,ii'  Just  then  ]>ressed  and  occupied  as  1 
must  know  he  was,  if  I  were  to  reatl  it  lie  should  not  probably  make  it 
tlie  subject  of  any  comment  at  that  time  ;  and  he  said,  if  aureeabU;  to 
me,  therefore,  and  uii(lerstandiii<4'  Ihar,  anticipatinj;'  his  icipiest  for  a 
Copy,  1  had  one  already  prepared,  he  would  ask  me  to  leave  that  with 
him  that  he  mijiht  have  it  to  lay  be(bre  the  Cal  iiiet  at  an  early  meetin,!'. 
This,  of  course.  I  consented  to  do.  I  yave  him  the  copy  therelore,  leav- 
In.i,'  him  to  return  to  the  House  of  Lords,  from  wlii<'li  he  had  been  hur- 
riedly called  to  meet  his  appointment  with  me. 

.  Lefore  we  parted,  however,  1  thoiij^lit  it  proper  to  say  to  ills  liOidship 
ij|iatas  Her  .Maj<'sty"s  (iovi'rnmeiit  would  nndou'»tedly  lake  a  little  time, 
perhaps  a  few  days,  to  consider  whether  they  should  make  any  answci', 
and  what  answer,  to  this  communication  from  tiie  I'nited  Stati's,  if  at 
any  time  in  the  interval  Ik!  (h'emed  it  a<lvisable.  in  the  interest  of  our 
two  con:.!.!  'S,  to  have  free,  conlidi'iitial  conxcrsation  with  me,  or  if  he 
thought  that  j^ood  undi'istaiidiii;:^-  mi<j;lit  be  iiromoted  liy  any  excliaiijic  of 
unollieial  sri|i;j;«'stioiis  touchiiiy,"  some  mode  of  issue  from  our  present 
Complication,  I  would  always  be  hajipy  to  meet  him  and  co-operalc  v  ith 
him  in    such  friendly  endcavoi'.     He  assented  at   once  cordially  to  the 

{>ropriety  of  our  keeitiiij;'  oursehi's  in  such  relation  and  free  u'notlicial 
ntercourse  with  each  other;  but  he  did  not  express  himself  as  hope- 
fully, as  he  thouiiiit  I  did,  of  an  ultimate  satisfactory  adjustment. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  wvx  r<'speel  fullv,  voiir  obedient  servant. 

iJoiiT.  c.  s("iii:n(:iv. 

Hull.  llA^iii.roN  I'isii. 

t'<<<ri  Inri/  iij'  State,   W'/tshiiiijt'fii, 


:l.    , 


■(:  p' 


12 


COUKESPONDENCE    EESrECTIXG    GENi:VA    ARIUTIIATIOX. 


No.  ];5. 


Geumtl  Svlx'Hcl;  to  Mr.  Fluli. 


No.  ISO.J 


I.F.dA'i'ioN  OF  '1  UK  1\\ii'i:t)  States, 
LoniUtn,  Marck  111,  1S7U.     (lIect.'iv(.Ml  Ai>ril  1.) 

Siu  :  !  liavc  biircly  tiiito  to  triiiismit,  so  as  to  catcU  iiMJiiCLMistown 
tlic  mail  wiiicli  has  li'lt  Liverpool  to-day.  tiic  r('j)!y  of  Lord  Griiiivillo  tu 
your  dis]>;!tcli  of  the  I'Ttli  rchriiary.  I(  caiiH?  to  iiie  at  olcvoti  o\;loik 
last  ni,'^lit,  and  the  printed  "  AltMiior.uidiim  "  whieli  accoiiipaiiiesit  asaii 
inclosiire,  and  wliieli  is  to  be  taken  as  a  part  of  the  ('0!iiinunicatioii, 
reached  nie  only  tiiis  afternoon. 

J  send  also,  herciwitli,  a  copy  of  my  answer  to  His  Liirdshij),  acknow', 
edjiin;;'  t!i<^  recei[>t  of  his  note  and  tlie  " -Memoriindum."' 

Yon  will  observe,  that  Her  MaJ(!sty's  (joveriiment  haw  construed  yoii! 
dispatch  to  nie  as  containiuu'  ai»]);irently  an  invitation  to  open  fully  ,i 
discussion  with  you  on  the  (|uestio(i  of  the.  rii^ht  of  the.  I.ruited  State> 
toinclu<le  in  their  Case  jtresented at  (rcucn'a  any  claim  for  indirect  lossis 
or  dama.i^'es.  There  is  nothinji'  advanced,  however,  <'ither  in  the  way  ei 
any  proposal  I'or  the  removal  of  the  'IilU(;ulty  between  us,  or  intiinatiii;; 
■".vhat  may  be  the  conse(pu'nce  in  case  of  continued  difference  of  o[»inioii, 
It  is  still  but  the  noti(!e  which  was  contained  in  Lor<l  (.Jranvillc's  note  ni 
tiie  ;>d  ultin;  »,  accom]>anied  now  by  the  reasons  which  have  led  He, 
Majesty's  (loverninent  to  the  conclusion  which  was  then  communicateii, 

iJut  1  must  close  in  haste,  without  further  comment. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  vour  obedient  servant, 

IIUDT.  C.  SCIIEXCK. 

lion.  IlAAiiLTOx  Fisir, 

t<(cn't(iii/  of  N(if( ,  ^y<l!'■J^nl(|t(>n. 


I       \ 


[liH'IoMiiT  1  ii.  No.  1:;.] 
FaU'I  (Jranrillc  in  (liiicnd  fSclieucJ:. 

FoKEKiN  Ol'l'iCK,  March  L'O,  iSTl'. 

SiK  :  1  have  laid  before  my  collea.yues  Mr.  Fish's  dispatch  of  theL'Tlli 
ultimo,  of  which,  at  my  I'Cijuest,  ami  aiitlunized  by  your  (iovernmeni, 
you  ,!;ave  nie  a  co]»y  on  the  1-ltIi  instant. 

Her  Majesty's  (iovernment  reco^'uize  with  pleasure  the  ass-araiices  ei 
the  President  that  he  sincerely  desires  to  promote  a  lirm  ami  abidiii,: 
friendship  between  the  two  nations;  and,  animated  by  the  sanu^  spirii. 
they  j>ladly  avail  themselves  of  the  invitation  which  your  (lovtu-nmeiii 
appear  to  have  .;;iven,  that  they  should  state  the  reasons  which  induccii 
them  to  make  the  declaration  contained  in  my  note,  to  you  of  the  M 
ultimo,  and  which  1  then  iiurposely  omit'i'd,  in  the  hope  of  obtaiiiiu::. 
without  any  controversial  tliscussion.  the  assent  of  the  CrovernmenI  m 
the  (Tuited  States. 

3Ir.  Fish  s.iys,  "  What  are  called  the  indirect  losses  and  claims  av 
not  now  |)ut  forward  for  the  lirst  time.  I'\)r  years  they  have  been  prom 
iiK'iilly  and  historically  pai't  of  the  'Alabama  claims.'  It  would  be  sii 
pcrllnous  to  »pn»te,  ov  perhaps  even  to  refer  'to,  paiticular  passages  in 
the  pul)lished  inst  met  ions  of  this  (iitvernnu'ut  to  their  Minister  to  (Ireir 
IW'itain,  in  tho  notes  of  that  Minister  to  Her  ."Majesty's  Principal  Secri 
tary  ol'  State  tor  I-'orei^'u  Affairs,  or  in  other  [juldic  papers,  to  show  tlm 


t 


Hie  exp( 
Which 
ibent  w( 
damaive; 
assci'tio 
are  slio\ 
Wue  tha 
♦ei'c  ma 
l^e  dire( 
ibpture 
(f  eorjria 
libiie   w( 

fese  di 
No  m( 
(l|iirin,n-  t 
Adams, 
<lf  the  C( 
Mr.  Keve 
©ommis 
tslie  olhci; 
biiiaa  cla 
1'  The  lir.J 
#commu 
drdy  doll 
that  tin 
on    the  1 
mission  o 
all  claims 
condition 
United  St 
belliji'ereii 
claims  on 
the  asser 
upon  IJrit 
Lord  CI 
In  Mr.  J 
inent  of  t 
bfe  si'rouiH 
they   pur] 
grounds  i 
Other  sim 
Vf«re  tliesi 
"Alabaim 
occurs  in 
ttary,  l>s(i; 
tiro  (lovei 
of  their  o 
siniilar  ve 
as  compre 
eniment  (i 
])own,  t 
the  appoii 
ttoii  and  a 
toward  lb 
against  II 
Ule  i»arf  o 


liTTRATIOX. 


COKRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATrON. 


1  o 


IVA)  Statks, 
[tH"ji\X'il  April  I.) 
Itch  at"  (},iiCL'iist()\vii 
t'  L')r(l  (liaiivillo  tn 
,e  at  eU'Vi'ii  (»\;l()rk 
i('eoini)aiiit'sit  asaii 
the  ('()!niimiii(;ati()ii. 

Lovilshij),  acknowl- 

lave  coustniod  yoiii 
itioii  to  opoii  fully  ii 
t  [\\r.  United  State- 
11  lor  iiidin^et  lossc- 
either  in  the  way  ui 
eu  lis,  or  iiitimatiiii; 
iilVereiU'C  of  opinion, 
•d  (Jraiiville's  note  ni 
which  have  led  He. 
then  eoMiiimui(;ateii, 
nt. 
vaiit, 
L\  C.  SCllEXCK. 


.;,  Marrli  HO,  1872. 

dispateh  of  theJTtli 
Noar  (loveriinient, 


felic  exi^'ctation  of  tliis  Gov<'rnnieiit  lias,  from  the  beftinnin^' of  tlie  aets 
rhieh  jiave  rise  to  the  '  Ahihaaia  ehiinis,'  l)ee:i  tliat  tlie  IJritish  (Jovern- 
lent  \v<)uld  iiMh'innify  the  United  States.  Incidental  or  eonse(inential 
■iaMia;A'<'^  were  often  mentioned  as  included  in  the  a(!countal)ility.''  This 
asseition  does  n(tt  ai)])ear  t(»  me  accurately  to  re])resent  the  facts  as  they 
are  shown  in  the  correspondence  between  the  two  (loveriiments.  It  is 
l^rue  that  in  some  of  the  earlier  letters  of  Mr.  Adams  va<;'ue  sujigestions 


trii 


w 


',  the  assarauces  oi 
,  lii.ii  and  abidin: 

by  the  same  spirit. 
I  your  iioverumeiii 
sons  which  induccii 
V,  to  you  of  the  •"•li 

hope  of  obtaining;. 

the  (.rovernment  ni 

vses  and  claims  an 


li'  I  iiii  I  111  noiiit;  </i  I  Mv  »  HI  in  1  IV 1  n  1  .->  wi  ><•  I .  ^  >\fii iii>n  ,  ,.^,n  .....^j^.. .■l.......• 
re  made  as  to  i>ossible  liabilities  of  this  country  exteudiiij^'  beyond 
'  direct  claims  tjf  American  citizens  for  s])ecitic  losses  arisinj;-  from  the 
<ii]»tnre  of  their  vessels  by  the  Alabama,   Florida,  Shenandoah,  and 
eorj.;ia  •  but  no  claims  were  ever  deiined  or  formulated,  and  certainly 
)ne  were  ever  desca'ibed   by  the   phrase   ''Alabama  claims/'  (.'xce[)t 
aiese  direct  claims  of  American  citizens. 
r><'o  mention  of  any  claim  for  nr.tional  or  iudin^'t  losses  had  been  madi^ 

firiii<4'  the  iie,u'otiation,  commenciii,^"  with  ^Ir.  SewartTs  disjiatch  fo  Mr. 
dams,  dated  the  27tli  of  Au;.!;ust.  IStid,  and  endinj;  with  the  si.iiiiature 
0i  the  Convention  of  the  10th  of  Xovember,  ISOS,  Ity  l^ord  Stanley  and 
Mv.  iieverdy  .Johnson,  by  the  [Vth  article  of  which  power  was  jiivcn  to 
©onunissioners  ''to  adjudicate  ui)ou  the  class  of  claims  relerred  to  in 
tfie  ollicial  correspondence  between  the  two  (lovernmeiits  as  the  'Ala- 
Mama  claims.'" 
*l  The  lirst  subsequent  mention  of  any  claim   for  national  losses  was  in 

S communication,  unauthorized  by  his  (loverirnent,  made  by  Mr.  liev- 
(ly  .lolinson,  in  i^farch,  ISfiO,  to  Ijord  Clarendon,  in  whicii  he  su^<4«'sted 
tliat  the  terms  of  the  Convention  si<>ned  by  him  with  Loi'd  (.'larendon, 
Ctti  the  14th  of  January,  which  <'0!ii])ris(>d  a  reference  to  a  Mixed  Com- 
mission of  the  "Alabama  claims,"  should  be  eiilar<j;ed  so  as  to  include 
all  claims  on  the  part  of  either  (loverument  upon  the  other,  an  essential 
condition  of  the  projiosal  beinj^'  that,  in  case  a  claim  was  set  up  by  the 
United  States,  founded  on  the  reco^iiiitiou  of  the  Conlederate  States  as 
bi©! liferents,  it  should  be  open  to  the  JUitish  (lovernment  to  advance 
claims  on  their  i)art,  such  as  a  claim  for  injury  to  British  interests  by 
the  assertion  and  exercist!  of  bellijierent  ri^ihts  by  the  United  States 
Upon  IJritisli  commerce. 

liord  Clarendon  at  once  declined  to  entertain  this  suu'ii'cstitm. 

In  Mr.  Fish's  dispatch  ol'  the  iMtli  of  September,  ISdO,  the  (loveru- 
int'ut  of  the  United  States  intimated  that  they  considered  there  mijilit 
bfe  .ijrounds  for  some  claims  of  a  larf>«>r  and  more  public  nature,  tliou,i>h 
tttey  purposely  abstained  at  that  time  fr<mi  makiujn'  them:  but  the 
grounds  indicated  were  not  limired  to  the  acts  of  the  Alabama  and 
dUier  simihu'  vessels,  or  to  any  mere  conseipiences  of  su(!li  acts,  nor 
were  thes(^  i)ublic  claims  then  described  or  referred  to  in  any  manner  as 
"Alabama  claims."'  That  expression,  ihe  "Alabama  claims,''  which  lirst 
occurs  in  a  letter  from  ]Mr.  Seward  to  Sir  F.  lUiice,  of  the  12th  of  dan- 
uary,  ISOT,  had  always  been  used  in  the  corresi)ondence  between  the 
two  (loveriiments  to  describe  the  claims  of  American  citizens  on  account 
of  their  own  direct  losses  by  the  depredations  of  the  Alabama  and  other 
Sllnilar  vessels,  and  had  never  been  employed  to  describe,  or  been  treated 
as  coniprcheudiu,!;',  any  luiblie  or  national  claims  whatever  of  tlu'  (lov- 
emuient  of  the  Uiiiffd  States. 


ley  have  been  in'oi'i  Down,  therefore,  to  the  time  when  Her  Ma,jesly"s(!overnnieiit  proposed 

His.'     It  would  be  sii  th«^  a])poiutiueiil  of  a  -Joint  lii.iih  Ccunmission  to  settle  the  I'ishery  (^)ues- 

I'ticular  jtassa.u'es  i:  tlon  and  all  other  (|Uestions  atlectiii.Li'  the  reflations  of  the  Unite(i  States 

'ir  Minister  to  (iriM:  toward  Her  .Alajesty's  possessions  in   North   America,  no  actual  claim 

ly's  Principal  Seen  afaiiist  Her  Majesty's  (roverument  had  been  formulated  or  notilied  on 

apers,  toshow  tlia  iMv  \y,\v\  of  the  Ignited  Slates,  except  for  the  ca[)ture  or  destriulioii  of 


^ffT 


14 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


§ 


■i 


I       ■       '   tri 

I'm  t*   ''■■ 

r   . .   1 


i    •  ' 


■       l 


l)roi»('i'ty  of  iixlividiiiil  citi/i'iis  of  the   United  Htates  by  tlio  Aliibainu 
iiiid  other  siinilar  vessels. 

When  Jler  Miijest.v's  (rovernuient  eonsented,  at  the  re(jM<>st  of  the 
(loveiiinient  of  the  United  States,  tliat  tlie  "Alabama  claims"  should 
be  (h'alt  with  by  the  ni,i>h  (/ommission,  it  was  in  tlie  full  eonli(U»nee 
tliat  the  i>hias('  "Alabama  claims"  was  used  l)y  the  United  ^States  (lov- 
evnment  in  the  same  sense  as  it  had  been  used  thi'ouijhout  the  jji-evious 
<'(H'resj)ondeuce  a'wl  in  the  (Conventions  si<fned  1)y  Lord  Stanh^ViHid  FiOrd 
Clarendon. 

National  claims  of  an  indirect  eharaetei',  smrh  as  those  referred  to  in 
Mr.  Fish's  dispatch,  could  not  be  comi)rehendcd  un<h'r  the  term  '•  claims 
iicnerically  known  as  the  Alaliama  claims."  The  possibility  of  a<lmit- 
tinp,'  as  a  subject  of  ne<>otiatiou  any  claim  for  indirect  national  losses  has 
never  been  entertained  in  this  country:  and  it  was  therefore  without 
the  slij>htest  doubt  as  to  such  claims  beinj»- inadmissible  that  the  Iiritish 
Ilij^h  Commissioners  were  appointed  and  proceeded  to  VVashinjjton. 

At  a  meetinjj:  of  the  iiritish  and  United  States  IJi^ih  Comnnssioners 
on  the  Sth  of  Man^h,  the  latter,  after  a  general  statement  of  th<^  claims 
of  the  United  States,  proceeded  to  say  that,  in  the  liopes  of  an  amicable 
settlement,  no  estimate  was  made  of  indirect  losses,  without  prejudice, 
however,  to  the  right  of  indemnitication  on  their  account,  in  the  event  of 
no  such  settlement  being  made;  and  they  afterwartl  pronn^l,  by  di- 
rection of  the  President,  tliat  "  the  Joint  High  ('oinmission  lould  agree 
upon  a  sum  which  should  be  paid  by  (heat  Ihitain  to  the  United  States, 
in  satisfaction  of  all  the  claims  and  the  interest  thereon." 

Mr.  Fish  says  that  the  President  earnestly  hoped  that  the  delibera- 
tions of  the  Commission  would  have  resulted  in  an  ac<'eptance  by  Her 
.Majesty's  Government  of  this  proposition. 

iler  Majesty's  (lovernment  cannot  understand  u[ton  what  this  hope 
was  founded. 

The  ])osition  which  the  Coverninent  of  this  country  have  maintaine<l 
througiu)ut  all  the  lu'gotiations  has  been  that  they  were  guilty  of  no 
negligence  in  respect  of  the  escape  of  the  Alabama,  and  the  other  ves 
sels,  and  have  therefore  incurred  no  liability  tor  anyiiayment,  and  they 
still  maintain  this  position. 

The  ()nly  grouiul  on  which  Ilei-  JMajesty's  (JovernnuMit  could  be  asked 
to  pay  any  sum  would  have  been  an  admission  on  their  part  that  there 
had  been  siu'h  negligence  as  rendered  them  Justly  liable  to  pay  a.  sum 
in  compensation.  This  would  liave  been  an  ab.solute  surreiuler  of  the 
position  which  has  always  been  held  by  this  country,  and  a  confession, 
which  could  never  have  been  expected  IVom  them,  (hat  they  had  been 
guilty  of  iM'gligence. 

Her  ]Ma.jesty:s  Hi;.,  i  ('onunissioners,  therelbre,  could  oidy  declare!  at 
once  that  a  i>roposai  of  an  "amieabh'  settlement"  in  this  parti(,'ulav 
Ibrm could  not  be  entertained,  and  Iler  Majesty's  High  Commissi<,ners,oii 
the  part  of  tids  country,  inunediately  macU-  a  counter  proposal,  naneiy. 
tM(  proposal  of  arbitration,  and  this  projiosal,  after  being  t(»  a  certaii; 
(  Xicnt  modified  on  the  suggestion  of  the  United  Sl^ates  Iligli  Cominis 
sioners,  was  accejited  by  them. 

The  modifieation  suggested  by  the  United  States  High  ( loiiunissiouers. 
and  acee])ted  by  those  of  Creat  Ib'itain,  was  a  concession  of  no  slight 
importance  (ui  the  part  of  this  countr\,  namely,  tnat  the  principles 
which  should  govern  the  .Vrbitrat(ns  in  the  consideration  of  the  facts 
shoidd  be  tirst  agreed  u])on ;  and  this  concession  was  very  materially 
enhanced  when,  in  order  to  strengthen  tln^  frieuilly  relations  between 
the  two  (vtantries  and  maice  sal  isfartory  provision  lor  tlie  future,  they 


COKRE.SrONDENCE    RKSPEOTING    GENEVA    AKBITL'ATION. 


15 


the  Alabtunsv 


what  this  hope 


I'liither  iijjToed  that  these  piiiiciph's  slumld  bo  those  eontaiiied  in  the 
Kuk'S  ill  the  Vlth  Ai'tieh>  of  the  Treaty;  for  they  thus  iieeepted  the 
retroac.five  etfeot  of  rules  to  whicli,  nevertheless.  th(>y  felt  boiiiul  to  tle- 
(ilare  that  they  could  not  'isseut  as  a  statement  of  priiieiples  of  iiitcrna- 
tional  law  in  force  at  the  time  when  the  "Alabama  (claims"  arose. 

The  friendly  spirit  of  Jler  Majesty's  (Jovernment:  was  further  si. mvii 
by  tiieir  aii.tlioriziii;>'  Ilcr  Majesty's  Ili<ih  (Jomniis^ioners  to  express  tht^ 
refi'rct  felt  by  Her  Majesty's  (lovernment  lor  the  escajx'.  under  whatevei- 
circumstaiiees,  of  the  .Vlabama  and  the  other  vessels  from  Ibitish  [)orts, 
and  I'or  the  «le|)redations  committed  by  those  vessels,  and  by  tiieir  ayree- 
injjf  that  this  expression  of  rejjret  should  bo  foruiallv  recoided  in  the 
Treaty. 

Xor  did  Her  Majesty's  ("iovernmentobJe."t  to  the  introduction  of  (;laims 
for  tiie  ex))ense  of  the  i»iirsuit  and  cai>ture  of  the  Alabama  and  otlu'r 
vessels,  iiotwithstandinj;'  the  doubt  how  far  those  claims,  thou.i;h  men- 
tioned during  the  conferences  as  direct  claims,  can  e  within  the  proper 
scope  of  the  arbitration.  They  acquiesced  in  the  proposal  to  exc^ludc 
from  the  nejjotiations  their  :''aims  on  behalf  of  Canada  ajjainst  the 
United  States  for  injuries  suUered  from  Fenian  raids — an  actjuiescenee 
which  was  due  partly  to  a  desire  on  their  part  to  act  in  a  spirit  of  con- 
ciliation, and  partly  to  the  fact,  stated  by  Her  Majesty's  Jlijih  Commis- 
sioners, that  a  portion  of  these  claims  was  of  a.  constructive  and  infer- 
ential character. 

The  importance  of  these  concessions  must  not  b(^  underrated.  Nor 
(!an  it  have  been  expecte<l  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  that 
concessions  of  this  importance  would  have  been  made  by  this  country 
if  the  United  States  were  still  to  be  at  liberty  to  insist  upon  all  the  ex- 
treme demands  which  they  had  at  any  time  suggested  or  brought  for- 
ward. 

Her  ^Eajesty's  (iovernment  (!onsidered  themselves  Justified  in  treating 
the  waiver  of  indirect  claims,  in  the  event  of  an  amicable  settlement, 
proffered  by  the  High  Connnissionersof  the  United  States,  as  one  which 
applied  to  any  form  of  amicable  settlement,  and  therefore  comprised,  in 
r.ke  manner,  the  form  of  amical)lo  settlement  propo;;c;l  by  the  British 
High  Commissioners,  accepted  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  and 
recognized  in  the  preamble  of  the  Treaty. 

Such  a  waiver  was,  in  fact,  a  necessary  comlition  of  the  siu'cess  of  tlie 
negotiation. 

it  \tas  in  the  lull  belief  that  this  waiver  had  been  made  that  the 
Ibitish  (iovernment  ratified  the  Treaty. 

Her  Majesty's  (lOvernment  are  anxious  that  the  considerations  which 
made  them  hold  this  belief  should  be  more  fully  explained  to  the  (Jov- 
ermiieiit  of  the  United  States  than  can  be  done  in  the  Ibrm  of  a  letter, 
and  I  have  accordingly  embodied  them  in  a  Memorandum,  which  I  have 
the  honour  to  inclose,  and  which  I  beg  may  be  read  with  and  considered 
iis  part  of  my  pieseiit  communication. 

Her  Majesty's  (iovernment  do  not  deny  that  it  is  as  com])etent  f(»r  tli(* 
(iov«>rnmeiit  (f  the  I 'nited  States  as  it  is  tor  themselves  to  asseit  that 
I  heir  own  inlerj)retat  ion  of  the  Treaty  is  the  correct  (Uie.  lUitwIiat  I  lei 
.Majesty's  Government  maintain  is,  that  the  iiatuial  and  gramnuUica! 
conslrnctMHi  of  the  language  used  in  the  Treaty  ami  I'l'otoeols  is  in  ac- 
eordanee  with  the  \  iews  which  they  enteitain,  and  sust  lins  their  asser- 
lion  that  the  terms  ol"  reference  to  the  Aii»ilrators  an^  limited  to  direct 
claims,  inasmuch  as  direct  claims  only  liaxc  tlironghout  the  correspwiid- 
<'iice  been  recogni/ed  and  reiieatetlly  defined  under  the  name  of  the 
eAlabama  claims." 


■m 
■  m 


16 


COKRESl'ONDENCC   RESPKCTING    GENEVA   ARIUTRATION. 


I 


|i  1. 


h'S 


I-:.  ■; 


•■■•  :  . 

I-' 

ti''-. 

Th(n"(>  avo  soiiu;  passaj-os  in  ^fr.  Fish's  (li.s[)atdi  in  wliidi  lie  (IoAmhIs 
t'  e  iiitiodnctioii  iiitotlic  .Vmoricaii  Casoof  tlie  (claims  for  iiidircitt  losses 
and  injuiios,  wliicli  I  cannot  allow  to  pa  ^s  witliont  more  spc'(;ial  riMnark. 

It  is  stated  that  they  are  put  for*'  ard  in  the  Case,  not  as  claims  for 
Avhich  a  speeillc  demand  is  made,  he^  as  h)sses  and  injuries  consequent 
upon  the  acits  complained  of,  and  necessarily  to  he  taken  into  e(piitahle 
c(»nsideration  in  a  linal  settlement  of  all  ditferences  Vu'tween  tlie  two 
countries,  and  as  not  reliufpiislicd  in  the  Treaty,  hut  covered  hy  one  of 
it  4  two  alternatives. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  do  not  perceive  what  "alternative"  in  the 
Treaty  can  <;over  these  claims. 

If,  indeed,  hy  this  l!in.i';ua<;e  IMr.  h'ish  is  to  he  understood  as  referring' 
to  the  two  dilferent  nH)des  provided  l>y  Arti<!les  VII  and  X  of  the  Treaty, 
for  arrivin.^'  at  the  amount  of  tlu^  jtayment  to  he  made  hy  Great  Britain 
in  the  eventof  any  liahility  heini>' estahlished,  the  answer  seems  ohvious, 
viz,  that  these  alternatives  arc  applieahle  oidy  to  the  settlement  of  the 
amount  of  diima.u'es,  and  not  to  tiie  measure  of  liahility. 

Aj];'ain,  i\Ir.  I'lsli  states  that  the  Treaty  was  not  an  amieahle  settle- 
ment, but  only  an  a,ureenuMit  between  the  Governments  as  to  the  mode 
of  reachin.u'  a  settlement,  anil  that  no  protfer  of  witliholdin,<>an  estimate 
of  indirect  losses  can  he  claimed  as  a  waiver  until  the  result  of  the  arbi- 
tration is  arrived  at;  but  he  overlooks  the  fact  that  the  Treaty  is  called 
an  amicable  settlement,  not  merely  in  relation  to  the  "Alabama  claims,"' 
but  as  an  entirety  ;  aiul  even  in  n^lation  to  the  "Alabama  claims"  alone, 
it  must  clearly  be  taken  that  the  ami(!able  settlenuMit  which  it  professed 
to  i)rovide  was  arrived  at  from  the  nunnent  when  the  Treaty  contaiinng 
the  agreement  to  }^o  to  arbitration  upon  the  claims  was  sifjned  ami  rati- 
fied. If,  accordin;i4"  to  ^Ir.  Fish's  view,  an  amicable  settlement  after  a 
reference  to  arbitration  can  only  be  arrived  at  by  an  adjudication  of  the 
claims,  it  is  obvious  that  no  waiver  of  any  such  (daims  could,  under  such 
i'ireumstances,  ever  be  made,  for  before  the  time  for  waiver  (on  this 
sui»position)  had  arrived  the  claims  would  already  have  been  decided 
upon. 

That  Iler  IMajesty's  (iovernment  never  intended  to  refer  these  claims 
to  arbitration,  and  that  in  ratifyinj>'  tiie  Treaty  they  never  contemplated 
their  beiiifj;  revived  in  the  ar<;umeiit  before  the  Arbitrators,  must  have 
been  obvious  to  you  from  the  lanfj;'iia;4e  used  in  the  debate  in  the  House 
of  Lords  on  the  IDtli  of  .June,  on  the  motion  for  an  address  to  the 
Qneen,  jmiyinji'  Her  ^lajesty  to  refuse  to  ratify  the  Treaty. 

On  that  occasion  I  distinctly  stated  this  to  bo  the  nnderstandiuf;' el' 
Her  ^Lajesty's  ( Jovernmeiit,  and  quoted  the  vi-ry  ]'roto(!ol  of  the  4tli  of 
May,  to  wliiidi  I  have  referred  above,  as  a  proof  that  these  indirei  t 
claims  had  "  entirely  disapi)eared."  When  Lord  Cairns,  to  whose  speech 
allusion  has  been  made  in  the  CniiCfl  States  Case,  subsequently  said 
that  extrava,yant  claims  ini,nht  be  put  in  and  take  their  chance,  he  was 
jnet  with  ex])ressions  of  dissent.  .Moreover,  Lord  Derby,  while  (aiticiziiiin 
the  ne<.votiation  and  the  terms  ol"  the  Treaty  in  other  respects,  partieu- 
larizeil  the  withdrawal  of  indirect  claims.  "The  only  cone(>ssion,''  lu' 
said,  "of  which  1  can  set  any  trace  upon  th(>  American  side  is  the  with 
<lrawal  of  that  utterly  lu'ejiosterous  demand  that  we  should  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  the  ]»reniatui'e  recognition  ol'  the  South  as  a  bellij>'ereiii 
power,  in  c()mi)any  with  that  e(pially  wild  ima.ijination,  wliiidi,  I  believe, 
never  extended  beyond  the  minds  of  two  or  three  si)eakers  in  Conii'rcss. 
of  makiii,ii,"  us  liabh'  for  all  tlie  eons!i'ii''iiv"  daina.ij'es  to  trade  and  navi.u'ii- 
tion  whieii  may  be  pro\  ed  oriuipposed  to  have  arisen  from  our  attitude 
durinu'  the  war." 


I  ohse 
ion,  am 
present  < 
ommun 
^our  Go 
Sir  S. 
H^e  subst 
id  as  ill 
lid  he  to 
lent, 
le  ratili( 
>u  call 
laced  oi 
i(\  Gove 
0rnment 
0halien^ 
f  tates. 
J   Her  31 
Understai 
*ry  last  c 
i   Mr.  Fis 
K'eu  put 
[ublic  lav 
lelinitelv 
Her  Mi 
H'est  of  b 
the  jK)i 
litely  sett 
|y  the  Ku 
lat  it  woi 
if  neutral 
Were  to  be 
Whatev 
Treaty, it  i 
ft'(»iu  the  J 
tlie  Arbiti 
any  neutrii 
act  or  omii 
Tiie  IJni 
Treaty  to  i 
They  ha 
knowled<4-e 
tliem.     Coi 
pi'i  ,n)sal  w 
Stfid,  in  soil 
;  Her  3Ia| 
llliiy,  nor 
Aiv  the 
pared  to  in 
tiie  expen.*^ 
agvs.  if,  wli 
permitted  I 
Bales  thro 
Ofiicers  '. 

To  attaci 
<tf  lieiitrali 
2  (i 


UTRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE  RESPECTING  GENEVA  ARBITRATION. 


17 


wliidi  lie  (lofiMids 
for  iiuliivct  losses 
ro  spociiil  iHMnavk. 
,  not  as  claims  for 
ijurics  conseqiiont 
ken  into  e(inital)l('. 
1  lu'twcen  the  two 
covered  by  one  ot 

ilternative"  in  the 

•stood  as  I'i'ferrins 
(IX  of  the  Treaty. 
^  by  Great  Britain 
ver  seems  obvious, 

settlement  of  the 
ity. 

in  amieable  settlc- 
its  as  to  the  mode 
oldingan  estimate 
;  result  of  tin;  arbi- 
he  Treaty  is  (ialled 
"Alalmma  claims," 
aum  claims"  alone. 
:  which  it  professed 
Treaty  contaiuinj;' 
as  sifj'ued  and  rati- 
settlement  after  a 
id  judication  of  the 

could,  under  sucli 
waiver  (on  this 

ixvo  been  decided 

refer  those  claims 
ever  contemplated 
trators,  must  have 
'bate  in  the  House 
address  to  the 
eaty. 

understandin,i>'  of 
tocol  of  the  4th  of 
at  these  indireet 
s,  to  whose  speech 
subsequently  said 
Mr  chance,  lie  was 
y,  while  criticizing^ 

respects,  particu- 
y  con(;ession,"   hv 

1  side  is  the  witii- 
should  be  held  re- 
h  as  a  belliji;er(>nr 
1,  which,  1  believe, 
ikers  in  Conjiress. 

trade  and  navi.ii'n- 

from  our  attitude 


I  observed  that  you  were  i)resent  in  the  House  of  Lords  on  that  occa- 
ion,  and  .vou  informed  me,  on  the  Kith  of  December,  that  you  were 
present  during;  the  speeches  of  Lord  Itussell  and  myself,  and  that  you 
)mmunicated  the  next  day  the  full  lunvspaper  report  of  the  debate  to 
kour  (lovernmen.t. 
Sir  S.  Northcote,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  repeated,  in  other  words, 
le  substance  of  my  remarks  on  the  limitation  of  the  terms  of  reference  ; 
i^d  as  ins  spee(!h  is  printed  in  the  papers  on  Foreign  Relations,  recently 
Ipiid  before  Congress,  it  nuist  also  have  been  report«'d  to  your  Clovern- 
lent.  lint  neither  on  the  occasion  of  my  speech,  nor  of  his,  nor  when 
le  ratilications  of  the  Treaty  were  (^changed  on  the  17th  of  June,  did 
)u  call  my  attention  to  the  fact  tiiat  a  ditferent  interi)retation  was 
laced  on  the  Treaty  and  Protocol  by  Her  ^Lijesty's  Governnient  and 
(lovcrnmentot' the  United  States;  nor,  solar  as  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment are  aware,  was  their  interjiretation  thus  i)ublicly  expressed 
Challenged  either  by  the  statesmen  or  the  i)ublic  press  of  the  United 
tates. 

Iler  [Majesty's  GovcrnnuMit  must  therefore  confess  their  inability  to 
understand  how  the  intimation  contained  in  my  note  of  the  lid  of  Febru- 
j|ry  last  can  have  been  re(;eived  by  the  President  with  surprise. 

Mr.  Fish  urges  that  the  claims  for  national  indirect  losses  which  have 
l^een  put  forward  on  behalf  of  his  (lovernment  involve  questions  of 

Jublic  law  which  the  interest  of  l)otli  Govennuents  requires  should  be 
efinitely  settled, 
il'jr  3Iajesty's  Government  agree  with  Mi\  Fish  that  it  is  for  the  iu- 
fprest  of  both  coiuitries  that  the  rights  and  duties  of  neutrals  upon  some 
<ff  tiie  points  hitherto  thought  open  to  serious  (!ontroversy  should  be  deti- 
Bitely  settled,  and  had  hoped  tliat  such  a  settlement  had  been  secured 
%y  the  llules  to  which  they  have  given  their  assent ;  but  they  cannot  see 
at  it  would  be  advantageous  to  either  country  to  render  the  obligations 
i'  neutrality  so  onerous  as  they  would  become  if  claims  of  this  nature 
ere  to  be  treated  as  proper  subjects  of  international  arbitration. 
£  Whatever  construction  may  be  placed  upon  the  1st  Article  of  the 
reaty,  it  is  inq)ossible  to  sever  the  terms  ot  reference  therein  (contained 
om  the  Jiules  in  the  Vltii  Article;  and  the  measure  of  liability  under 
e  Arbitration,  therefore,  will  be  the  nu'asure  of  liability  incurred  by 
^|ii,v  neutral  State  which,  after  acceding  to  these  Kules,  may,  "by  any 
^ct  or  omission,*'  fail  to  fulliil  any  of  the  duties  set  forth  in  them. 
;',  The  United  States  and  Great  IJritain  have  bound  themselves  by  the 
l^reaty  to  observe  these  llules  as  between  themselves  in  future. 
I  They  have,  moreover,  bound  themselves  to  bring  these  llules  to  the 
lowledge  of  other  niaritime  [)owers,  and  to  invite  them  to  accede  to 
em.  Could  it  have  been  expected  that  those  i)owers  would  accept  a 
(.,)osal  which  might  entail  upon  a  neutral  such  an  unlinuted  liabilit}' 
id,  in  some  instances,  might  involve  the  ruin  of  a  whole  country? 
Her  3IaJesry's  Government  cannot  fiu-  themselves  accept  such  a  lia- 
lUliiy,  nor  recommend  the  accei)tance  of  it  to  other  nations. 
I  Are  the  Government  and  people  of  the  United  States  themselves  pre- 
red  to  undertake  the  obligation  of  i»aying  to  an  aggrieved  belligerent 
e  exi)enses  of  the  i)rolongation  of  the  war  and  other  indirect  dam- 
es, if,  when  the  United  States  are  neutral,  they  can  be  shown  to  have 
rniitted  the  infringement  of  any  one,  or  part  of  any  one,  of  the  three 
Biiles  througii  a  want  of  due  diligence  on  the  [»,irt  of  their  executive 
Onlcers  .' 

\;  To  attach  such  tremendous  consequences  to  an  unintentional  violation 
0  licutrality — it  might  be  by  a  single  act  of  negligence — would  be  to 

:       2  G  A 


I 


^ 


-I 

I.  •:  i 


■■/!  ■ 


!■■  » 


.^1 


^Jr 


I 


■"i 


IS 


C0R11K8P0NDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


strike  a  lieavy  blow  at  the  interests  of  i)ence;  for  war  bas  scarcely  aiiv 
coiis('(|iiences  more  formidable  to  a  belli{;ereiit  than  those  which  mijiht 
thus  be  incurred  by  a  neutral;  and,  while  war  otters  a  chance  of  gain, 
neutrality  would,  if  such  claims  as  these  were  once  admitted,  present 
without  any  such  compensation  the  risk  of  intolerable  loss. 

With  respect  to  the  disclaiiner  made  by  Mr.  Fish  of  any  exiieetatioii 
or  wish,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  (iovernment,  to  obtain  any 
"  unreasonable  pecuniary  compensation  "  on  account  of  these  indirect 
claims,  I  thiidc  it  sutiicient  here  to  observe  that,  on  the  (piestion  of 
amount,  the  British  iieople  and  Government  have  necessarily  been 
obliged  to  look  to  the  nature  and  grounds  of  the  claims  as  they  are  stated 
in  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  and  have,  of  course,  been  unable  to 
form  a  judgment  from  any  other  <J(ita  of  the  exi»ectations  of  those  by 
whom  tlie  clain)s  are  advanced.  If  these  claims  could  be  coirsidcred  as 
well  grounded  in  principle,  it  appears  to  Her  ]\rajest.v's  Government  to 
be  capable  of  demonstration  that  the  magnitude  of  the  danuiges  which 
might  be  the  result  of  their  admission  is  enormous.  The  grounds  of 
these  views  are  more  fully  stated  in  the  Tliird  Part  of  the  inclosed 
Memorandum. 

Mr.  Fish  has  appealed  to  the  proceedings  at  the  Washington  Claims 
Commission  in  connection  with  the  Confederate  cotton  claims,  llci 
Majesty's  Government  must,  however,  observe  that  there  is  no  analogy 
between  the  two  cases,  as,  by  the  Treaty,  the  Washington  Commission 
has  power  "to  decide  in  each  case  whether  any  claim  has  or  ha.s  not 
been  duly  made,  preferred,  and  laid  before  them,  either  wholly,  or  to 
any  and  what  extent,  according  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the 
Treaty;"  no  similar  words  being  used  as  to  the  powers  of  the  Geneva 
Tribunal. 

It  is  the  function  of  the  Washington  Commission  to  decide  upon  a  va 
rietyof  general  claims,  not  of  one  kind,  nor  limited  or  defined  beforehand, 
and  Her  IMajesty's  Agent  was  instructed  that  his  duty  would  prima  Jack 
be  to  present  such  claims  as  private  individuals  might  tender  for  that 
puipose  for  acceptance  or  rejection  by  the  Commission,  Her  Majesty's 
Government  not  intending  to  make  themselves  responsible  either  for 
the  merits  of  the  particular  claims  or  for  the  arguments  by  which  tliev 
might  be  supported.  Tiiejurisdifition  of  the  Geneva  Tribunal  was  liiii 
ited  to  one  particular  class  and  description  of  claims. 

The  facts  are  as  follows : 

On  the  11th  of  November,  in  pursuance  of  the  general  instructioii> 
which  had  been  given  to  Her  Majesty's  Agent,  a  claim  upon  a  bond 
issued  by  the  so-called  Confederate  States  for  a  sum  forming  part  of  a 
loan  called  the  "Cotton  Loan,"  contractted  by  those  States,  and  for  the 
paymentof  which  certain  cotton  seized  by  the  United  States  was  alleged 
to  have  been  hypothecated  by  the  Confederate  (Government,  was  tiled  at 
Washington;  and  on  the  21st  I  learnt  from  you  that  the  United  Statt'> 
Government  objected  to  claims  of  this  kind  being  even  i)resented. 

Some  delay  took  place  in  consecpience  of  unavoidable  causes,  witl 
some  of  which  you  are  well  accpiainted.  And  there  were  others,  sinl 
as  the  necessity  notonly  of  conimunicating  with  my  colleagues,  but  witl 
Sir  Fdward  Thornton,  and  of  (considering  how  far,  uiuler  the  same  genenL 
descrii)tioii,  there  might  be  included  claims  substantially  ditt'erent.  Tin 
despatches  from  Her  Majesty's  Agent  giving  the  details  of  the  nature  o: 
the  claims,  and  of  the  demurrer  made  to  it  by  the  United  States  Agent. 
did  not  reach  me  until  the  Otli  of  December.  1  had,  in  the  meantime,  ascci 
tained  from  Sir  Edward  Thornton  that  the  expression  "acts  committed" 
had  been  used  by  mutual  agreement  in  the  negotiations  which  precedcii 


I 


le  ai)po 
this  c 
lords  b( 
private  c 
lext  me( 
)rded  ii 
bderat'.' 
)nils  e 
r<n)erty 
Mit  to  "tl 
.•\[r.  Fi 
ly  clain 
Altliou 
ctendei 

le  xrv 

lu'tlier 
lu'  Treat 
ftie  Claim 
tlie  const 
(liat  umh 
»  3[r.  Fis 
ifrere  guii 

tut  the  m 
11  ited  St 
^  Informix 

Sition,  wh 
poll  the 
reconsidei 
tail  of  the 
rith  Mr. 
[aiiifestly 
hen  Her 
lass  that 
lent  to  til 
id  >rr.  F 
Her  Mai 
Of  the  Cai 
acter  hav( 
jquiesce 
^11  eases 
)vernnie 
'I  have  ri 
df  the  Uni 
t/t  Her  Mil 
losses  are 
iutended  t 
j^blicly  d( 
Biave  been 
jible  scope 
them  for  ( 
|i*irnicious 
]^ace  of  tl 
"^l  ai»pre( 
(J'overninei 
hkve  i)roiii 
Ooverumei 


IBITRATION. 

i\v  has  scarcely  any 
those  which  inijilit 
s  a  chance  of  gain, 
s  admitted,  present 
le  loss. 

of  any  exi)ectatioii 
lent,  to  ot)tain  any 
lit  of  these  indirect 
on  the  qnestion  of 
e  necessiirily  been 
IS  as  they  are  stated 
rse,  been  unable  to 
tations  of  those  by 
lid  be  eoirsidered  as 
it,v's  Government  td 
tiie  damages  which 
IS.  The  grounds  ot 
irt  of  the  inclosed 

Washington  Claims 
lotton  claims.  Ilci 
there  is  no  analo^M 
ington  Commission 
laim  has  or  ha.s  not 
either  wholly,  or  to 
md  meaning  of  the 
iwers  of  the  Geneva 

to  decide  upon  a  va 
defined  beforehand, 
y  would  prima  Jack 

ght  tender  for  that 
sion.  Her  Majesty's 

<l)onsible  either  for 
ents  by  which  they 
Tribunal  was  liin 


;eneral  instructions 
claim  upon  a  bond 
\  forming  part  of  ii 
States,  and  for  tlit 
I  States  was  alleged 
nment,  was  tiled  at 
t  the  United  Static 
en  presented, 
idable  causes,  witli 
e  were  others,  sntl 
(•olleagues,  butwitl 
ler  thesnmegeneiii; 
ially  different.  Tin 
ails  of  the  nature  o; 
nited  States  Agent. 

he  meantime,  ascoi 
I  "acts  committed" 

ns  which  precedoii 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTINa   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


19 


e  appointment  of  the  High  Commission  with  a  view  to  exclude  claims 
this  class  from  tins  consi(h'ration  of  the  High  (commissioner;  those 
ords  being  also  used  in  the  XHth  Article  of  the  Treaty  with  regard  to 
ivate  (ilainis.  The  (puistiou  was  brought  before  the  Cabinet  at  its 
ext  meeting  on  the  llth,  and  was  finally  decided  on  the  14th,  as  re- 
^folded  in  a  ndnute  by  Mr.  Gladstone.  This  decision  was  that  the  Coii- 
jfederat'.'  cotton  claims  should  not  be  presented  uidess  in  the  case  of 
jonds  exchanged  for  cotton,  which  hail  thereby  become  the  actual 
o[»erfy  of  tlie  claimant,  and  directions  were  given  for  a  desi)at(;h  to  be 
nt  to  tliis  effect,  and  on  the  10th  I  informed  you  that  you  might  write 
Mr.  Fish  that  Her  Majesty's  Agent  would  be  instructed  not  to  present 
y  claims  that  did  not  come  within  tlu;  provisions  of  the  Treaty. 
Altliougii  it  appears  that  the  umlei'standing  need  not  necessarily  have 
tended  beyond  the  rejection  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  claims,  under 
e  XrVth  Article,  by  which  the  Commissioners  have  power  to  decide 
liether  any  claim  is  preferred  within  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of 
le  Treaty,  (as  was  done  with  various  claims  under  a  similar  Article  in 
ihe  Claims  Convention  of  1S53,)  Ifer  Majesty's  Government  acceded  to 
the  construction  which  the  United  States  Government  had  put  upon 
|hat  understan<ling. 
"*  Mr.  Fish  will  observe  the  feeling  by  which  Her  Majesty's  Government 

{ere  guided  in  coming  to  tlieir  decision  on  the  1-tth.  They  desired  to 
ut  the  most  favorable  construction  upon  any  understanding  which  the 
'uited  States  Government  might  have  supposed  to  exist. 
^  Information  reached  me  the  next  morning  by  telegraph  of  theadjudi- 
tion,  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  had  not  expected  to  take  place, 
pon  the  merits  of  the  claim  by  the  Commissioners.  This  reciuired  a 
reiM)nsideration  of  the  instructions,  and  fresh  instructions  w^ere  sent  by  the 
ail  of  the23(l,  and  also  by  telegraph,  to  Sir  Edward  Thornton  to  arrauge 
ith  Mr.  Fish  that  the  presentation  of  claims  which  appeared  to  be 
anifestly  without  the  terms  of  the  Treaty  should  be  withheld,  and  that 
'hen  Her  Majesty's  Agent  was  of  opinion  that  a  claim  belonged  to  a 
|ass  that  ought  not  to  be  presented,  it  would  be  desirable  that  an  agree- 
ment to  that  effect  should  be  made  and  signed  by  Sir  Edward  Tlnn'uton 
lihd  Mr.  Fish.  These  instructions  were  communicated  to  Mr.  Fish. 
?'Her  Majesty's  Agent  has  since  acted  in  accordance  with  the  decasion 
<tf  the  Cabinet  of  the  14th  of  December.  Xew  claims  of  the  like  char- 
acter have  been  temlered  to  him  by  parties  who  were  unwilling  to 
tcpiiesce  in  the  decision  of  the  Commissioners  as  applicable  to  their 
Ml  cases,  but  whi(!li  claims,  under  instructions  from  Her  Majesty's 
€bvernnient,  have  not  been  presented. 

*^1  have  now  placed  in  your  hands,  for  examination  by  the  Government 
of  the  United  Stat(rs,  a  statement  of  the  reasons  which,  in  the  opinion 
OT  Her  Majesty's  Government,  sufticiently  show  that  claims  for  indirect 
IdlBses  are  not  within  the  meaning  of  the  Treaty,  that  they  were  nev(!r 
ifttended  to  be  included  by  Her  ]\rajesty's  Government ;  that  this  was 
'"  biicly  declared  before  the  ratification,  when  the  error,  if  any,  might 
ve  been  corrected:  that  such  claims  are  wholly  beyond  the  reason- 
le  scope  of  any  Treaty  of  Arbitration  whatever';  anil  that  to  submit 
em  for  decision  by  the  Tribunal  would  be  a  measure  fraught  with 
rnicious  consequences  to  the  interests  of  all  nations  and  to  the  future 
sace  of  the  wiuid. 

I  ai)preciate  the  desire  substantially,  if  indirectly,  expressed  by  the 
3vernnient  of  the  United  States,  to  be  advised  of' the  reasons  which 
AC  prompted  the  declaration  nmde  by  me  on  behalf  of  Her  ^Majesty's 
jvernment  on  the  3d  of  February,  no  less  than  the  friendly  and  cour- 


20 


CORRKSPONDENCE    RESPP:CT1N0    GENEVA    ARUITRATION. 


■  4 


■;  '.r 


'' 

'•■■i' 

;.  (|- 

■ill: 

■t^ 

^ 

•1 

-.■] 

.1 

■.;-| 

■i'r 

■■'■•;i 

?'■ 

teoiis  lanj'naj'e  wliich  liiisbcon  oinploycd  by  tlic  United  States  Seeretarv 
of  State.  The  present  h'tter  is  inti'iided  by  iler  Majesty's  Govenmient, 
not  as  the  coinineiieement  of  a  dii)loinati<'  (controversy,  but  as  an  act  of 
conipliancH' witii  that  most  reasonjible  <lesire.  Tliey  are.  sure  that  tlie 
President  will  be  no  less  anxious  than  they  are  tliat  tlie  conduct  of  botli 
Governnu'nts  should  eonforaj  to  the  true  nu'aniii}^  and  intent  of  tlii- 
insti'unient  they  have  Jointly  i'ranied  and  sif'ned,  whether  that  meaniiij; 
be  drawn  I'roin  the  authoritative  documents  themselves  or  from  collateral 
consi<lerati(>ns,  or  from  both  sources  conduned. 

KntertaininiL':  tiiemselves  no  doubt  of  tlie  sullicieiujy  of  the  grounds 
on  which  their  jud;^njent  proceeds,  they  tliiidc  it  the  course  at  oiu!e  most 
respectfid  and  most  friendly  to  the  GovMirnment  of  the  United  States  to 
submit  those  grounds  to  tlieir  impartial  ai)preciation.  Her  Majesty's 
Government  feel  con}i<lent  that  tliey  have  laid  before  the  President 
ample  proof  that  the  conclusion  which  was  announced  by  me  on  the  'M 
of  February,  and  to  which  1  need  hardly  say  that  they  adhere,  cannot 
be  shaken. 

I  have,  &c., 

GRANVILLE. 


!'■ 


[Inclosuio  2  ill  No.  11$.] 
MEMOEANDUM. 

Part      I. — On  the  waiver  ot'ilaiiuH  for  iiidiroct  losses  coiitaiiieil  in  the  llGtli  Protocol. 

P.VKT    II. — t)ii  tin;  construction  of  tlu-  Treaty. 

Paht  III. — On  the  amount  of  the  claims  for  indirect  lo.sses. 

PAET  L 

On  the  icaiver  of  chiims  for  indirect  losses  contained  in  the  SGth  rrotovtil 

The  first  Protocol  of  the  Conferences  of  the  Ififili  (.'ommission  bcjiin 
with  a  recital  of  the  powers  of  the  British  Commissioners,  stating  lit; 
Majesty's  purpose  in  their  appointment  to  be  to  "discuss  in  a  friendl) 
spirit  with  Commissioners  to  be  appointed  by  tlie  Government  of  tli> 
United  States  the  various  (piestions  on  which  ditferences  had  arisen  In 
tween  Great  Britain  and  that  country ,"  and  to  "  treat  for  an  agreemoi 
as  to  the  mode  of  their  amieahle  settlement.'^ 

The  Protocol  of  the  1th  of  May  recounts  that  the  American  Com 
missioners  stated,  on  the  8tli  of  IMarch,  "  that  the  history  of  tli' 
'Alabama,'  and  other  cruizers  which  had  been  titted  out,  or  armed  d 
ecpiipped,  or  which  had  received  augmentation  of  force  in  Great  Britai: 
or  in  her  Colonies,  and  of  the  operations  of  those  vessels,  showed  (1)('\ 
tensive  direct  losses  in  the  capture  and  destruction  of  a  large  number  c 
vessels  with  their  cargoes  and  in  the  heavy  national  expenditures  i; 
the  pursuit  of  the  cruizers;  and  (2)  indirect  injury  in  the  transfer  of; 
large  part  of  the  American  commercial  marine  to  the  British  flag,  ii 
the  enhanced  payments  of  insurance,  in  the  prolongation  of  the  win 
and  in  the  adclition  of  a  large  sum  to  the  cost  of  the  war,  aiul  the  sup 
pression  of  the  rebellion  ;  and  also  showed  (3)  that  Great  Britain,  b 
reason  of  failure  iu  the  proper  observance  of  her  duties  as  a  ueutrii' 
had  become  justly  liable  for  the  acts  of  those  cruisers  and  of  their  tenden 
that  the  c/fn'HJ,s' for  the  loss  aiul  destruction  of  private  property  wliici 
had  thus  far  been  presented  amounted  to  about  $14,0'.>0,00(),  withoii; 


I 


iterest, 

hich  ii: 

tad  heel 

l»rtiti('at 

mieal>te 

rejiulic( 

,'ent  of 

"The  . 

le  Mriti 

fe.s.sioii 

)iiiiiiitt( 

iso  prnj). 

tliif'h  sh 

}oll  of  (( 

The  J5i 

Itati'iiuMi 

Jity  for  e 

he  adopt 

itiiicted 

Ciovernni 

The 

)f  the  B 

tent  to  si( 

irifiiratio 

e  consi( 

The.se  1 

icoipora 

On  the 

ftnd  Lord 

Comiui.ssi< 

tlie  same  ! 

koiiourabl 

Mr.  Fisl 

nQissionei> 

tjb-  the  Bri 

woirers.     ^ 

iite  the  ge 

British  Co 

kad  led  to 

tbe  api)ro\ 

#)«  of  a  c 

dtonie." 

Two  da;5 
a^tnlile: 

"  Her  I 
desirous  ti 
lietween  ti 
«^e(!tive  1 
fter  hav.i 
id  proiiei 
t|  In  the  vi 
Anieri(;au  i 
the  claims 
being  arri\ 
iQ  First,  th 
iilemeut  no 


RRITRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARUITRATION.         21 


Led  States  Socrotarv 
jt'sty's  Govern  nu'iit, 
•sy,  but  as  an  act  of 
I'.V  are  sure  tliat  tlie 
tile  conduct  of  both 
'f  an«l  intent  of  tlu' 
lether  that  raeaniiii! 
esor  from  collateral 

!Mcy  of  the  grounds 
course  at  once  most 
he  United  States  to 
ion.  Her  Majesty's 
efore  the  rresideiit 
;ed  l)y  me  on  the  .'M 
they  adhere,  cannot 


GEANVILLE. 


iued  in  the  IlCth  Protocol 


in  the  3Gth  Protocol 

Onimission  bcjiiii 
sioners,  stating  lie: 
scuss  in  a  friendl; 

Government  of  tin 
enees  had  arisen  hv 
■at  for  an  agremuti 


the 
th( 


cVmerican  Com 
history  of  tli' 
(1  out,  or  armed  o: 
)rce  in  Great  Britai: 
■ssels,  showed  (l)w 
a  large  number • 
nal  expenditures  i: 
in  the  transfer  of 

the  British  flag,  ii 
ngatiou  of  the  aviii 
le  war,  and  the  siif 
it  Great  Britain,  b 
uties  as  a  ueutni' 
and  of  their  tendcn 

ite  propertv  whiei 
!14,000,000,  withoii: 


iterest,  which  amount  was  liable  to   l>e  greatly  increased  by  claiinH 

Miich  had  not  been  i)resent(Ml ;  that  the  cost  to  which  the  Go  vernmen 

lad  been  put  in  the  pursuit  of  cruizei-s  iiould  easily  be  ascertained  by 

M'tificatesof  (rovernnuMit  acciouutiug  olUcers ;  that,  in  the  hoi)e  of  an 

\micnhh-  settlement,  no  estimate  "as  mad(^  of  tlie  indirect  lossi>',  with.mt 

'Judi(;e,  however,  to  the  rifjht  to  iivleninifieation  on  their  uevoant  in  the 

rent  of  no  such  settlement  being  made. 

"The  America II  Coiniuissioners  further  stated  that  they  hoped  that 
e  IJritish  (Jouimissioners  would  bo  able  to  place  upon  lecord  an  ex- 
cssion  of  regi'ct  by  Her  Majesty's  Goveriimi'iit  for  the  depredations 
Miinitted  by  the  v(!ssels  whose  acts  wiMV  now  under  discussion.  They 
so  proposeil  that  the  .Joint  High  Commission  shituld  agree  ui)ou  a  sum 
liidi  should  b(^  ])aid  by(rrcat  Britain  to  the  United  States,  in  satisfac- 
lioM  of  (ill  the  elaims,  and  the  interest  thereon.'''' 

The  IJritish  Commissioners  abstained  "from  replying  in  detail  to  the 
tatcment  of  the  American  Commissioners,  in  the  lioitc  that  the  neces- 
ity  for  entering  upon  a  lengthened  controversy  m';.;iL  he  obviated  by 
h(^  adoption  of  so  fair  a  mode  of  settlement  as  that  which  they  were  in- 
itnu;te(l  to  propose ;  and  they  had  now  to  repeat,  on  behalf  of  their 
government,  the  olfer  of  arbitration. 

''The  AnuMican  (Commissioners  expressed  their  regret  at  this  decision 
,0f  the  British  Commissioners,  and  said  further  that  thei/  eould  not  eon- 
$eut  to  submit  the  question  of  the  Jiahility  of  Her  Majestjfs  Gorernment  to 
Arbitration,  unless  the  i>rinciples  which  should  govern  the  Arbitrator  iu 
%ho  consideration  of  the  facts  eould  be  Hrst  agreed  upon." 
I  These  principles  were  subsefjuently  dis(Missed  and  agreed  upon,  and 
"fticorporated  in  the  Draft  of  the  Vlth  Article  of  the  Treaty. 
1  On  the  (!th  of  May,  the  Commissioiuirs  met  for  their  linal  conference, 
ud  Lord  de  Gray  said  that  "it  had  been  most  gratifying  to  the  British 
Commissioners  to  be  associated  with  colleagues  who  were  animated  with 
^e  same  sincere  desire  as  themselves  to  bring  about  a  settlement  tuirnxWy 
Iwnourable  and  Just  to  both  countries." 

Mr.  Fish  replied  that  "  from  the  tirst  Conference  the  American  Com- 
missioners had  been  impressed  by  the  earnestness  of  desire  manifested 
Ay  the  British  Commissioners  to  reach  a  settlement  worthy  of  the  tico 
woivers.  *  *  *  Ills  colleagues  and  he  could  never  cease  to  ai)i)reci- 
ii|te  the  generous  spirit  and  the  open  and  friendly  manner  in  which  the 
British  Commissioners  had  met  and  discussed  the  several  questions  that 
lind  led  to  the  conclusion  of  the  Treat)/,  irhieh  it  was  hoped  would  receive 
tte  approval  of  the  people  of  both  coiuitries,  and  would  prore  thefounda- 
J^n  of  a  cordial  and  friendly  understanding  between  them  for  all  time  to 
fitenie." 
!  Two  days  afterward  the  Treaty  was  signed  with  the  Ibllowing  Pre- 
amble: 

r  "  Her  Britannic  Majesty  and  the  United  States  of  America,  being 
desirous  to  i»rovide  for  an  amieable  settlement  of  all  causes  of  dilterence 
between  the  two  countries,  have,  for  that  purpose,  appointed  their  re- 
spective rienipotentiaries,  *  *  *  And  the  said  PIenii)otentiaries, 
«ter  liav.ng  exchanged  their  full  powers,  which  were  found  to  be  in  due 
#1(1  i)roper  form,  hace  (Kjreed  to  an<l  eoneluded  the  following  ArticleSi" 
n  In  the  view  of  Her  Majesty's  (rovernment  the  statenumt  made  by  the 
iluuuican  Coaimissioners  on  the  8tli  of  March  contained  a  waiver  of 
Mie  claims  for  indirect  losses  contingent  on  an  "amicable  settlement" 
being  arrived  at ;  and  this  waiver  consisted  of  two  parts  : 
iy  Fii'-^t,  the  affirmative  stateuient  that  "  in  the  hope  of  an  amicable  set- 
itlemeut  no  estimate  was  made  of  the  iudireut  losses."    The  words  "  iu 


l-  ^'^^ 


2t 


CORUKSPONDKXCi:    RESPECTING   GENEVA   AKBITRATION. 


tlic  liopc  of  iin  ami(;iibl<',  scttloiiuMit  "  are  in  themselves  <;riiiiimatieally 
Hcneiiil,  and,  unless  qualified  by  a  subseciuent  limitation,  mean,  in  the 
hope  <»f  any  such  settlement  as  the  parties  shall  acknowled^'c  to  fall  un- 
der the  jthrase  '•  amicable  settlenuMit."  Now,  this  part  of  the  waiver, 
beintr  a  declaration  in  whi(!h  th«^  other  party  had  an  interest,  and,  so 
far,  of  the  nature  of  the  promis(>,  coidd  only  be  so  limited  by  an  express 
specilication  Ibllowin;;;' it  iinnu'diately,  or  at  least  before  the  othei'  i)arty 
had  taken  any  step  in  reliance  on  its  {general  charactei-.  Hut  no  such 
si>eciticaMon  was  made;  nor  does  any  specitlcation  at  all  as  to  the  par- 
ticular form  of  settlement  appear  in  the  Protocol.  The  phrase  conse- 
quently retains  the  j;eneial  character  above  described  us  its  literal  and 
gramnmtical  meaning'. 

It  ndf^ht  be  said  that  the  conclinlinj;' words  of  the  phrase — "noestinujte 
was  made  of  the  indirect  losses" — had  a  special  regard  to  th.^  form  of 
amicable  settlement  thereaftta'  proposetl  by  the  American  Commission- 
ers, viz,  the  paynu'nt  of  a  ;iross  sum.  This,  howevt'r,  can  only  be  main 
tallied  subject  to  the  (|ualilication  that,  if  the  estimate  of  indirect  losses 
was  withheld  in  the  hope  that  that  proposal  would  be  accept<'d,  and  it' 
the  view  of  the  American  Commissioners  was  that  the  acceptance  of 
that  proposal  aloiu'  would  <'onstitute  the  "amicable  settlenuMit,"  in  con- 
sideration of  which  the  estinnite  of  indirect  losses  was  withheld,  then 
the  next  step  for  them,  when  the  ]>roposal  was  declined,  was  to  present 
that  estinmte;  or,  if  not,  then  in  some  other  specific  manner  to  keep 
alive  the  claim.  JJnt  tliey  did  neither;  they  did  not  intimate  or  j^ive 
notice  to  the  JJritish  Comnussioners  that  their  hope  of  an  "amicable 
settlement"  liad  been  frustrated  or  disai)pointed,  nor  did  they  say  any- 
tiling'  to  the  effect  of  nndvinj;'  this  first  portion  of  the  waiver  dei»endent 
on  the  rejected  proposal.  And  thus  the  phrase  "an  amicable  settle- 
ment"' is  left  to  staiul  in  its  oriyiind  and  juramnuitical  generality. 

The  second  part  of  the  waiver  is  as  follows: 

"Without  prejudice,  however,  to  the  ri<>ht  of  indemnification  on  then' 
account  [/.  c,  on  account  of  indirect  losses]  in  the  event  of  no  such  set- 
tlement beinj;-  made."  Its  i>recise  beariu}^'  obviously  depends  upon  the 
meaning'  of  tlie  words  "no  such  settlement." 

Now  the  word  "such"  grammatically  (jualifies  the  word  "settlement" 
by  referring  to  the  antecedent  expression  "amicable  settlenuMit."  "Such," 
therefcn-e,  means  "amicable;"  and  the  right  reserved  by  the  American 
Commissioners  is  grammatically  a  light  to  revive  the  question  of  indi- 
rect losses  in  the  event  of  no  amicable  settlement  heiny  made,  and  is  noth- 
ing nH)re. 

It  is  to  be  (d)served  that  at  this  time  no  proposal  whatever  ha<l  been 
made  for  i)ayment  of  a  gross  sum,  or  for  any  particular  form  or  mode 
of  settlement. 

The  only  rennnning  question  is  whether  the  Treaty  was  itself  "an 
amicable  settlement," or,  which  is  the  same  thing  lor  the  purposes  of  the 
argument,  was  in  ordine  towards  an  amicable  settlement,  and  a  step  on 
the  road  to  it. 

This  (piestion  is  answered  by  the  preamble  of  the  Treaty,  which  de 
Clares  that  the  I'resident  of  the  United  States  had  (as  well  as  Her 
I\lajesty)  given  his  Commissioners  (Hutain  |)owers  "in  older  to  provide 
for  an  amicable  settlement  "of  certain  differences,  in  which  the  "Ala- 
bama claims"  were  included;  that  these  i)owers  had  been  coiniiared  and 
verified;  and  that  in  virtue  of  them  the  Commissioners  had  agreed  upon 
the  Articles  of  the  Treaty  which  are  then  set  forth  in  order.  The  "ami- 
cable settlement"  is  here  distinctly  recognized  not  as  a  particular  solu- 
tion of  the  pending  questions  which  had  been  proposed  and  set  asi<le,  but 


CO 

18  an  obj( 
katisfactiii 
In  the  Tre 
nissioner." 
md  the  ii 
from  th< 


Upon  t 
Protocols, 

First.  \\| 
inoirn  an 

Second. 
%ehirh  have 
,  Claims?''' 

Third.  \ 

p'oHunf/ont 

i,s'  the  '■Aial 

|of  the  rete 

.1    Each  of 

I    1.  What 

Tcnown  as  t 

TIk^  wor 

■  ,ac(iuired  a 

its  us(^  in  p 

The  won 
Were  cjiisde 
'    The  wor 
semed  or 
ulars. 

The  dipl( 
therefore  I 
sented,  or  i 
phrase  "th 

The  earli 
letter  of  M 
fijioke  "of 
vessels"  b; 
Govern  niei 
proi>erty  o 
British  Jur 
to  the  trea 
which  (as 
previously 
originally  1 
be  referred 
pensation.' 
ernment  " 
thus  sustai 

On  the  1 
August,  1.': 


^ 


TRATION. 


CORRKSPONDENCe   RKSPHCTINO   OKNKVA    ARBITRATION. 


23 


s  };riiiiiinati('ally 
DM,  iiK'iiii,  in  tlu> 
'hMlj,'('  to  fall  nil- 
;  of  tlu'  waivtM', 
interest,  and,  so 
mI  l»y  an  ex|)ri'ss 
the  other  party 
lint  no  sueli 
II  as  to  the  par- 
lie  pliraso  ('onse- 
ts its  literal  and 

;e — "no  estimate 
to  tl>«'  form  of 
•an  Ooniniission- 
an  only  be  main 
)f  indireet  losses 
aeeei)ted,  and  it' 
le  aeeeptance  of 
tlenient,"  in  con- 
i  withheld,  then 
1,  was  to  present 
manner  to  keep 
ntimate  or  };ive 
)f  an  "amicabhi 
ilid  they  say  any- 
aiver  dependent 
amicable  settle- 
;enerality. 

fication  on  their 
of  no  such  set- 
)ends  upon  the 

:'d  "settlement" 
iu<!nt;'  "  Such," 
the  American 
uestion  of  indi- 
(le,  and  is  noth- 

itever  had  been 
form  or  mode 

was  itself  "an 
purposes  of  the 
:,  and  a  step  on 

eaty,  which  de 
s  w-ell  as  ITer 
rder  to  provide 
lich  the  "Ala- 
_.  comi)ared  and 
ul  agreed  upon 
er.  The  "anii- 
l)articular  solu- 
d  set  aside,  but 


4s  an  object  of  negotiation  whicdi  had  been  provided  for  in  a  manner 
'satisfactory  to  both  parties,  and  the  provision  for  which  was  «'mbodied 
In  the  Treaty.  Tlu'  reservation,  therefore,  made  by  the  Anu'rican  ('(»m- 
inssioners  had  not  come  into  play;  tlu^  waiver  remained  in  full  fonie ; 
md  the  indirect  loss(\s  were  excluded  by  the  i)reaiiible  of  Jie  Treaty 
from  the  scope  of  ♦^'•e  arbitration. 


I  PART  ir. 

*  On  the  constrncfion  of  the  Treaty  of  }Ynshhi(jtnn. 

£  Upon  the  constru(;tion  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  apart  from  the 

il'rotocols,  tlu-re  appear  to  be  threi^  questions: 

IT  First,  What  (;laims  are  descril)ed  by  tlu;  words,  "  the  eliiims  generieally 

Wcno'cn  (ts  the  '■Aldhnmn  VlaUnx?'" 

'f     Sevoiid.  What  vessels  are  described  by  tin'  words,  ^^the  ficeeraJ  irssels, 

hchirh  have  (jiren  rise  to  the  cluiins  qenerieally  Jinon-n  ((s  the  •Alahdina 

Thirtl.  What  claims  are  descM'ibed  by  the  words,  "a7/  the  said  elaims, 
frowiiui  out  of  acts  cominilfed  by  the  aforesaid  vessels,  and  ffcnerienlly  knoicn 

^■s  the  ^Al((haina  Claims  f^"  (bein;''  the  words  in  wiiich  the  subject-matter 

lof  the  reference  to  arbitration  ajireed  upon  is  delined.) 

1    Each  of  these  (pu^stions  will  be  examined  sei)arately. 

I    1.  What  claims  are  destiribed  by  the  words,  "the  ulnimB  generimUy 

l^noivn  as  the  'Alabama  Claims?'" 

1    The  word   "known"   si{>nihes  that  this  collective  expression   hail 
■|ac(iuired  a  definite  sense,  sui)posed  to  be  mutually  understood,  from 

dts  us(r  in  previous  (communications,  b(;tween  the  same  pai'ties. 

The  word  "  ju'enerically  "  naturally  signifies  that  all  the  claims  intended 
Were  ejiisdeni  (jeneris. 

K    Tlu^  word  "(claims"  itself  naturally  signifies  demands  actually  i)re- 
sented  or  notilied,  either  with  or  without  a  full  speciticatiou  of  partic- 

;;Ulars. 

Tiie  diplomatic  correspondence,  which  ju'cceded  the  negotiation,  must 
therefore  be  referred  to,  to  discover,  first,  what  demands  had  been  pre 
sented,  or  notified;  and  secondly,  what  had  been  the  previous  use  of  the 
phrase  "the  'Alabama  Claims?'" 

The  earliest  intimation  of  any  claims  against  this  country  was  in  the 
letter  of  Mr.  Adams  to  Lord  Uussell,  of  I'Oth  Xovembiu",  ISi  ';  which 
fipoke  "of  the  depredations  committed  on  the  high  seas  ujion  merchant- 
vessels"  by  the  "Alabama,"  and  of  "the  right  of  reclamation  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  for  the  grievcms  damage  done  to  the 
property  of  their  citizens,"  by  reason  of  the  escaiie  of  that  vessel  from 
British  Jurisdiction;  and  which  referred,  in  support  of  that  alleged  right, 
to  the  treaty  of  ITiM:  between  (Ireat  Britain  and  the  United  States,  by 
■which  (as  Mr.  Adams  inaccurately  iej)resented)  "all  cases  of  damage 
previously  done  by  capture  of  British  vesstils  or  merchandize,  by  vessels 
originally  fitted  out  iu  the  ports  of  the  United  States,"  were  agreed  to 
he  referred  to  a  commission,  to  award  "the  lu^cessary  sums  for  full  com- 
pensation." He  added,  that  he  had  received  directions  from  his  Gov- 
ernment "to  solicit  redress  for  the  national  and  private  injuries  already 
thus  sustained." 


On  the  10th  February,  18(J;5;  L>!)th  April,  ISfi.l;  7th  July,  18(5;};  2 
August,  1803;  lUth  September,  18(53,  and  23d  October,  1803,  Mr.  Achi 


4th 
ims 


■  I 


f 


24 


CORRESPONDEXCE    RKSPECTIXG    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


f  , 


•  ■  ■  .1 


If. : 


. '   t*» 


i 
( ■,••, 


preseiittMl  to  Lord  llnssell  a  series  of  defiiiite  claims  made  a{?ainst  the 
Government  of  tliis  country  hy  i»articuh;r  American  citizens,  in  respect  of 
ships  and  pro|»erty  belonj;inj4'  to  them,  said  to  liave  been  destroyed  by 
the  "Alabama,"  intimating,  in  his  letter  of  the  2'.k\  October,  that  his 
Government  "must  continue  to  insist  that  Great  Britain  has  made  itself 
res))0)>sible  for  the  damaf/es  which  the  peace/id,  hmabiilimj  citizem  of  tlie 
United  States  smta in  hy  the  depredations  of  the  vessel  called  the  ^  Alabama. ''^^ 
He  added,  (in  an  important  passage  containing  the  first  suggestion  of 
arbitration  as  a  mode  of  thereafter  solving  tluMpu'sticm,)  "In  repeat- 
ing this  conclusion,  however,  it  is  not  to  be  understood  that  the  United 
Htates  incline  to  act  dogmatically  or  in  a  spirit  of  litigistion.  They  fully 
comprehen<l  how  unavoidably  leciprocal  grievances  must  spring  up  from 
the  divergence  of  the  policy  of  the  two  countries  in  regard  to  the  present 
insurrection.  *  #  *  Poi-  these  reasons  I  am  instructed  to  say  that 
they  frankly  confess  themselves  unwilling  to  regard  the  i)resent  hour  as 
the  nu)st  favourable  to  a  calm  and  candid  examination  by  either  i>arty  of 
the  facts  or  the  princijjles  involved  in  (tases  like  the  one  now  in  (piestioii, 
Though  indulging  a  firm  conviction  of  the  correctness  of  their  jmsitiou 
in  ret/ard  to  this  and  other  claims,  they  dechm^  themselvi'S  disposed  at 
all  times  hereafter,  as  well  as  now,  to  consider  in  the  fullest  manner  all 
the  evidence  and  the  argunuMits  which  Her  IMajesty's  Government  may 
incline  to  proffer  in  refutation  of  it;  and,  in  case  of  an  imiiossibility  to 
arrive  at  any  common  conclusion,  1  am  directed  to  say  there  is  no  fair 
and  e(piitable  form  of  convcMitiomd  arbitrament  or  reference  to  whi(!h 
they  will  not  be  willing  to  submit.  Entertaining  these  views,  1  crave  per- 
mission to  apprise  your  Lordship  that  I  have  received  directions  to  con- 
tinue to  present  to  your  notice  claims  of  the  character  heretofore  advanced, 
whenever  they  arise,  and  to  furnish  the  evidence  on  whicth  they  rest,  as 
is  customary  in  such  cases,  in  order  to  guard  against  possible  ultimate 
failure  of  justice  from  the  absence  of  it. 

In  a  later  letter,  of  3Lst  October,  1S03,  Mr.  Adams  (while  i)resenting 
other  similar  demands  in  respect  of  property  destroyed  by  the  "  Flori- 
da") spoke  of  ^'■the  claim.':  f/ron-iny  out  of  the  depredations  of  the  ^Ala- 
bama'' and  other  vessels  issuiny  from  British  ports' 

On  the  2()th  January,  18(i4,  he  jtresented  another  similar  claim  by  the 
owners  of  the  "  Sea  liride,"  cai)tnred  by  the  "Alabanui."  And  at  later 
dates  the  particulars  were  transndtted  by  him  of  certain  claims  made 
by  ]>ersons  Mhose  property  was  alleged  to  have  been  destroyed  by  the 
"Shenandoah.''' 

On  the  7th  A[)rd,  ISGo,  (when  the  war  was  considered  by  him  as 
actually  or  virtually  at  an  eml,)  ^Ir.  xVdams  transmitted  to  Lord  Kussell 
certain  reports  of  "  dei)redatioiis  committed  U|)on  the  (tommerce  of  the 
United  States"  by  th«'  "Shenandoah,"  and  added,  "were  there  any 
reas»)u  to  believe  that  the  oi)erations  carried  on  in  the  ports  of  Her 
^Majesty's  Kingdom  and  its  dependeiu'ies  to  maintain  and  extend  this 
systematic;  depredation  upon  tiie  commerce  of  a  friendly  people  had 
been  materially  relaxed  u  prevented,  I  should  not  be  under  the  paiul'iil 
necessity  of  announcing  to  Your  Lordship  the-  fact  that  my  (iovcrnmcni 
cannot  avoid  cntailiny  upon  the  (lorernmcnt  of  (Sreat  Britain  the  respon 
silnlity  for  this  d<(mayc,'"'  and  he  proceeded  to  speak  of  "the  injury  tliat 
might  yet  be  impending  from  the  part  which  th(>  Ibitish  steamer  'City 
of  Richmond'  had  had  in  being  snlfei'cd  to  tiansport  with  impunity  from 
the  port  of  London  men  and  supplies,  to  place  them  on  board  of  flic 
Frein'h-i)uilt  steam-ram  'Olinthe,'  alias  '  Stoerkoddei','  alias  'Stonewall.' 
which  had,  through  a  continuously  fraudulent  juocess,  succeeded  in 
deluding  several  Governments  of  Europe,  and  in  esca])ing  from  this 


lemispl 
\/a  comp 
xrmamc 
Uttribuf 
\50mmer 
lad  alr( 
tecognit 
)e  tlie  n 
^f  all  til 
'St  her 
jfecognit 
|o  Your 
>n  whic 
h(^  resp 
^vils  tha 
bonsi(ler( 
leretofoi 
It  is  t( 
)f  the  (" 
idvance> 
[except  1^ 
rovernm 
lures  by 
Jovernm 
like  natu 
Thisle 
»f  whi(!h 
I' never  a< 
rere  to  b' 
Fnited  Si 
^ally  con 
a  resix 
fti  their  p 
ii^.daiiis.  o 
f*oringal, 
to  what  tl 
thereby  a 
have  beei: 
tay,  more 
0n  board 
^hich   Ml 
ttiM<>  ])()iir 

JfUMUMltS. 

•elligereii 
been  in  fa 
]6rit.iin)  1 
ilw  ocean 
Proprrli/  h 
The  Stli 
^  "S.  Thi 
built,  mai 
from  the 
States,  an 
tlnis  enab 
Taiitage  fi 
tion. 


m 


TITRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING   GENEVA    ARBITRATION.  25 


uiadp  nsainst  tlie 
tizens,iii  resijectof 
lieeii  (U'stroyed  by 

October,  that  his 
a  ill  has  inaile  itneJf 
'tliiK/  citizenH  of  the 
led'ihe^  Alabama:^' 
tirst  siio'>4estioii  of 
iti(ni,)  "  In  ropcat- 
)d  that  tlie  United 
:ati<)n.  They  fully 
list  sprinji'  up  from 
nard  to  the  present 
^ructed  to  say  that 
he  present  hour  as 
I  by  either  party  ot 
lie  now  in  (luestion. 
ss  of  their  jiositioii 
selve.'*  disposed  at 
'  fullest  manner  all 
s  (xovernnient  may 
an  inqtossibility  to 
ay  there  is  no  fair 
reference  to  which 
(  views,  1  crave  per- 
d  directions  tcx'oii- 
hcretoj'o re  ad ra need, 
which  they  rest,  as 
t  possible  ultimate 


(while  presenting 

d  by  the  ''  Floii- 

tions  of  the  ^Ahi- 


unlar  claim  bv  tlio 
a."  And  at'later 
tain  claims  made 
destroyed  by  the 


dered  by  him  as 
■tl  to  Lord  Kussell 

commerce  of  the 
"were  there  any 
the  ports  of  Her 
n  and  extend  this 
endly  people  had 
under  the  i»ainfid 
at  tin/  (jorenimcnt 
'iritaia  the  irspon- 

"  the  injury  tiiat 
ish  steanu'r  '  City 
ith  impunity  from 
1  (tu  board  oi'  tlie 

alias  'Stonewall.' 
ess,  succ<'(Mled  in 
sca]>iny  from  this 


emisphere  on  its  errand  of  mischief  to  the  other."     lie  then  went  on 

\,o  complain  that,  by  reason  of  a  series  of  acts,  {the/nniishinri  of  "  rcsselti, 

rmamcntK,  niipi>lic.s',  dud  wew,")  which  he  contemled  to  be  almost  wholly 

ittributable  to  Great  Britain,  or  to  British  citizens,  the  entire  maritime 

Bommeree  of  the  United  Stat(^s  was  in  course  of  being  transferred,  utuI 

had  already,  to  a  preat  extent,  passed  over  to  (rreat  Britain,  whose 

irecofi'nitiou  of  the  belligerent  character  of  the  insurgents  he  alleged  to 

ibe  the  main  and  original  source  of  all  this  mischief;  adding,  '-  In  view 

Af  all  these  circumstances,  I  am  instructed,  whilst  insisting  on  the  pro- 

itest  heretofoie  solemnly  entered  against  that  i)roceeding,''  (i.  r.,  the 

Ifecognition  of  Southern  belligerency,)  "further  respectfully  to  represent 

|o  Your  Lordship  that,  in  the  opinion  of  my  Government,  the  grounds 

ibn  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  rested  their  defence  against 

%]]('  responsibility  inciu'red  in  the  manner  hereinbefore  stated,  tor  the 

evils  that  have  followed,  however  strong  they  might  have  hitherto  been 

•jbousidered,  have  now  failed,  by  a  i)ractical  reduction  of  all  the  ports 

heretofore  temporarily  held  by  the  insurgents." 

;  It  is  to  be  observed  that,  although  the  general  injury  to  the  commerce 
jof  the  L^nited  States  is  largely  referred  to  in  this  letter.  Mi'.  Adams 
■;i»dvauces  lu)  new  claim  for  compensation,  on  that  or  any  other  account, 
|(excei>t  ibr  captures  made  by  the  "Shenandoah,'')  against  Her  M  'jesty's 


WTOvernment;  he  even  intimates  that  the  particular  claim  for  l  lie  cap- 
tures by  the  "  Shenandoah "  would  not  then  have  been  made,  if  his 
government  could  have  felt  assured  that  no  further  operations  of  the 
like  nature  would  take  phu-e. 

•  This  letter  led  to  a  ]>rolonged  controversial  argument,  in  the  course 
bf  which  (on  the  4th  ^lay,  1805)  Lord  Kussell  observed  that  he  could 
r  never  admit  that  the  duties  of  (Jreat  r>ritain  toward  the  United  States 
ilv'ere  to  be  ineasunMl  by  the  losses  which  the  trade  and  commerce  of  the 
tJiiited  States  might  have  sustained,'"  and  said,  "The  (juestion,  then, 
feally  (tomes  to  this;  Is  Her  Majesty's  (Tovernment  to  assume  or  be  liable 
|o  a  resiionsibility  for  conduct  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  did  all 
%  their  power  to  iirevent  and  to  punish?  A  responsibility  which  Mr. 
I^^dauis.  on  the  part  of  lao  United  States  (government,  in  the  case  of 
|*(uUigal,  i»ositively,  firndy,  and  Justly  <leclined.  Have  you  considered 
lo  what  tills  responsibility  would  anu)unt?  Great  Britain  would  become 
thereby  answerable  for  every  ship  that  may  have  lei't  a  British  port  and 
liave  been  found  afterwards  used  by  the  Confederates  as  a  ship  of  war; 
iay,  nunc,  for  every  (iannon  ami  every  musket  used  by  the  Confedei'ates 
§n  board  any  ship  of  war,  if  maiuifactnred  in  a  British  workshop."  To 
fliicli  Mr.  Adams  reidied  (LM>th  May,  l.S(5."))  by  a  "recapitulation'' of 
i|ine  points,  wiiich  he  said  he  had  desired  to  end)ody  in  his  pi-evious  ar- 

EiMUMits.  These  jioints  (beginning  with  the  recognition  of  Southern 
'lligereiicy  on  the  high  seas,  ami  alleging  this  i)elligerency  to  have 
been  in  fact  created,  after  the  re(!ognition,  by  nu'ans  derived  from  Great 
Britain)  mentioned,  under  the  7th  ]n'iu\,^^fhc  hiiniinif  and  desfroiiiu;/  on 
the  orriDi  a  larficjiurnhn-  <f  merchant  ressels  and  a  eery  large  amount  of 
properti/  helontjinii  to  the  people  >f  the  United  Staten.'''' 

*  The  Sth  ami  !»th  heads  we"e  thus  worded: 

i"S.  That,  in  addition  to  this  direct  injury,  the  action  of  these  P.ritish 
uilt,  manned,  and  arnu'd  vessels  has  had  the  indirect  elfect  of  diiving 
•om  the  sea  a  large  poition  of  the  ('(unmerciid  marine  of  the  I'nited 
States,  and,  to  a  corn'sponding  extent,  enlarging  that  of  Great  ibitatn, 
jBius  enabling  one  jmrtion  of  the  British  i)eop!e  to  derive  an  unjust  ad- 
irantage  from  the  wrong  committed  on  a  friemlly  nation  by  another  pov- 
lion. 


' 


26 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


:u':i  ■ , 


y 


■  ♦  ■ 


I. 


"9.  That  the  injuries  thus  received  by  a  country  wliich  has,  meanwhile, 
sedulonsly  endeavored  to  perform  all  its  oblij^ations,  owing  to  the  iin- 
perfe<!tion  of  the  legal  means  at  hand  to  prevent  them,  as  well  as  the 
unwillingness  to  seek  for  more  stringent  powers,  are  of  so  ffravea  nature 
as  in  reason  and  Justice  to  constitute  a  ralid  claim  for  reparation  and  in- 
demnificationy  Later  on,  in  the  same  letter,  Mr.  Adams  also  said: 
"  Your  Lordship  is  pleased  to  observe  that  you  can  never  admit  that  the 
duties  of  Great  Britain  toward  the  United  States  are  to  be  measured  by 
the  losses  which  tlie  trade  aiul  comnun'ce  of  the  United  States  may  havi; 
sustained.  To  which  I  would  ask  permission  to  reply,  that  no  such  rule 
was  ever  desired.  The  true  standard  for  the  measurement  would  seem  to 
be  frauu'd  on  the  basis  of  the  clear  obligations  themselves,  and  the  losses 
that  spring  from  the  ini])erfect  performance  of  them;"  and  "thus  it  is 
that,  whatever  may  be  the  li.  e  of  argument  1  pursue,  I  am  comi)elle(l 
ever  to  return  to  the  one  conclusion:  the  nation  that  recognized  a  Power 
as  a  iiellif/erent  he/ore  it  had  1>uilt  a  ressei,  and  became  itself  the  .sole  source 
of  all  the  hell if/erent  character  it  has  ever  possessed  on  the  ocean,  must  be  re- 
garded as  responsihle  for  all  the  damage  that  has  ensued  f\,,n  that  cause  to 
the  commerce  of  a  Power  with  which  it  was  under  the  most  sacred  of  ob- 
ligations to  preserve  amity  and  peace.'' 

It  will  be  seen  that,  although  the  general  propositions  of  this  letter 
might  be  wide  enougii  to  include  the  largest  imaginable  demands,  it 
nevertheless  abstains  from  putting  forward  any  new  claim  in  a  delinite 
or  tangible  form ;  and  purports  rather  to  recapitulate  and  adhere  to 
the  tenor  of  the  preceding  correspondence.  And  in  this  sense  it  was, 
evidently,  un<lerstood  by  Lord  Kussell,  who,  in  his  answer  of  3()tli 
August,  18(55,  leferred  to  the  suggestion  of  an  arbitration  contained  iu 
Mr.  Adams's  former  letter  of  the  23d  of  October,  1803;  and,  while  de- 
clining "  either  to  make  reparation  and  compensation  for  the  captures  made 
by  the  'Alabama,''  or  to  refer  the  <iuestion  to  any  foreign  State,"  ottered  a 
reference  to  a  Commission  of  "  all  claims  arising  during  the  late  civil 
war,"  whi(!h  the  two  Powers  should  agree  to  refer  to  tlie  Commission- 
ers. And  again,  on  tiie  14th  October,  he  repeated  :  "There  are,  I  con- 
ceive, many  claims  upon  which  the  two  Powers  would  agree  that  they 
were  fair  subjects  of  investigation  before  Couunissioners.  But  I  think 
you  must  per(!eive  thnt  if  the  United  States  Government  were  to  propose  to 
refer  claims  arising  out  of  the  captures  made  %  the  '■Alabama''  and  '  IShen- 
andoah^  to  the  Commissioners,  the  answer  of  Her  ]\LiJesty's  Govern- 
ment must  be  in  consistency  with  the  whole  argunuuit  I  have  main- 
tained, in  conformity  with  tlie  views  entertained  by  your  Government 
iu  former  times.  I  shonld  be  tddiged,  in  answer  to  such  a  proposal,  to 
say :  For  any  acts  of  Her  Majesty's  subjects  (joininitted  out  of  their  juris- 
diction and  beyond  their  control,  the  Government  of  Her  Majesty  iiic 
not  responsible,"  &c. 

On  tile  2Istof  October  ^{r.  Adams  addressed  a  long  letter,  with  numer 
ous  incilosures,  to  Lord  Itussell,  with  reference  to  the  "Shenandoiili,'' 
alleging  that  vessel  to  have  been  received  by  the  authorities  at  Mel 
bourne  with  knowledge  of  an  illegal  e((uipment  in  this  country;  and 
insisting  that,  on  that  account,  JFer  .]r(i}estifs  Government  assumed  a  re- 
sponsihilifg  for  all  the  damage  which  it  hivl  done,  and  wlii(tli,  down  to  tin' 
latest  a(!('()unts,  it  was  still  (loing,  to  tlie  peiUM'ful  coiiiiuenu^  of  the  United 
States  on  the  o(!(»an."  A  piirti<!ular  clnim  l>y  the,  owners  of  a  ship  ciiu- 
tured  by  tlie  "  SlKMiinidoali,"  was  presented  v.'ith  this  letter. 

In  his  letter  to  Lord  Clarendon  of  the  lilst  November,  LSti."),  Mr, 
Adiims,  under  the  instructions  of  his  Government,  declined  Lord  Bus 
sell's  projntsal  for  a  limited  reference  to  Coiunilssiouers  of  such  claims  ;i> 


it 


the  tw( 
■jfeovern 
Itordsli 
Just  an 
^r  furt 
■•  The 
ipainistr 
.  1.  Ti 
|ange  o 
rn  Stal 
|ned,  fc 
or  the 
lieir  ve 
|oah ;" 
lad  eve 
|pect  o 
,lidelin_ 
Interest 
:;;    On  th( 
|o  :\Ir.  A 
frhich  it 
t|ng  corrf 

fi urge  t 
f  eitizem 
ijfered  b 
jereafte 
pitted  on 
ii^henand 
0quii>ped 
l|v  throuj 
"Jieltered 
levastati 
nearly 
^(t  it  pre 
if^ived  in  t 
hereafter. 
yourself, 
#iiment, 
l^l)eal  wji 
flrati;  dis< 
4|)iiit  Cla 
aa»y  form 
we  time  i 
l;^en,  and 
WvernnK 
MisptMid  f 
Biitain,  { 
afose  diiri 
subside  a 
^vonrabli 
^e  claims 
We  asserl 
an  ('labor; 
this  respt' 
paitment. 
mttentiono^ 


s 


n 


BITRATION. 

ch  has,  meanwhile, 
s,  owing  to  the  iiii- 
lein,  as  well  as  the 
of  so  grave  a  nature 
■  reparation  and  in- 
Adams  also  said: 
ever  admit  that  the 

to  be  measured  hy 
h\  States  may  hav« 
:,  that  no  such  rule 
nent  would  seem  to 
'Ives,  and  the  losses 
tu;"  and  "thus  it  is 
le,  I  am  eouipelled 

recognized  a  Power 
itself  the  sole  souree 
he  ocean,  must  be  re- 
dfruiii  that  cause  to 
s  most  saered  of  ob- 

itions  of  this  letter 
inable  demands,  it 
'  claim  in  a  delinite 
late  and  adhere  to 
I  this  sense  it  was, 
his  answer  of  3()tli 
ration  contained  iu 
803 ;  and,  while  de- 
or  the  captures  made 
ign  State,"  ottered  a 
iring  the  late  civil 
tlie  Commission- 
There  are,  I  con- 
I  a<>Tee  that  they 
ners.     But  I  think 
t  icere  to  propose  to 
tbaina '  and  '  IShcn- 
]\[ajesty's  Govern- 
ment I  liave  main- 
your  Government 
such  a  proposal,  to 
out  of  their  juris- 
Her  Majesty  aro 

etter,  with  numer 
le  "Shenamloali," 
inthorities  at  Mel 
this  country  ;  and 
inenf  assumed  a  re- 
U'wh,  down  to  till' 
i.erci^  of  the  Uniteil 
UM's  of  a  sliii*  c;U)- 
letter. 
veniber,  180r>,  .Afi'. 
t'clini'd  Lord  ilns 
■s  of  such  claims  as 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


27 


*the  two  Governments  could  agree  upon.  "Adhering,"  he  says,  "  as  my 
ipovernment  does  to  the  opinion  that  the  claims  it  has  presented,  which  His 
jordship  has  thought  nt  at  the  outset  to  exclude  from  consideration,  are 
^ist  and  reasoiuii)le,  I  am  instructed  to  say  that  it  sees  now  no  ocu^asion 
)r  further  delay  in  giving  a  full  answer  to  His  Lordship's  propositions." 
The  whole  result  of  this  correspondence,  down  to  the  change  of  Ad- 
ipinistration  in  this  country  in  18(J0,  may  be  thus  summed  up : 
■4.  1.  That  notwithstanding  continual  complaints,  extending  over  a  vast 
inge  of  subjects,  from  the  recognition  of  the  belligerency  of  the  South- 
rn  States  downwards,  no  "  claims"  against  this  country  were  ever  de- 
nned, formulated,  or  presented  on  the  part  of  che  United  States,  except 
)r  the  specittc  losses  of  American  citizen.-,  arising  from  the  capture  of 
leir  vessels  and  property  by  the  "Alabama,"  "Florida,"  and  "  Shenan- 
loah  ;"  and  (2)  that  no  such  form  of  expression  as  '■^  the  Alabama  claims^'' 
jad  ever,  down  to  this  time,  been  used  to  describe  even  the  claims  in  re- 
|l)ect  of  those  ca[)tures,  much  less  to  comprehend  any  more  vague  and 
lulelinito  demands  of  indemnity  to  the  general  mercantile  or  national 
iterests  of  the  United  States. 

On  the  accession  of  Lord  Derby  to  power,  Mr,  Seward  in  a  despatch 
.Mr.  Adams,  dated  the  L'Tth  August,  18GG,  thus  delined  the  "claims" 
Inch  it  had  been  the  object  of  the  United  States  to  press  in  the  preced- 
correspondence,  and  of  which  he  now  again  instructed  Mr.  Adams, 
I  urge  the  settlement :  "  You  will  herewith  receive  a  summary  of  claims ' 
'citizens  of  the  United  States  against  Great  Britain  for  damages  which  were 
Itffered  by  them  during  the  period  of  our  late  civil  war  and  some  months 
^lereafter,  by  means  of  depredations  upon  our  commercial  marine,  com- 
litfedon  the  high  seas  by  the  ^  Sumter,^  the  ^Alabama,''  the  '^  Florida,''  the 
Shenandoah,''  and  other  ships  of  war,  which  were  built,  manned,  armed, 
iuii)ped,  and  fitted  out  in  British  ports,  and  despatched  therefrom  by 
jji-  through  the  agency  of  Britivsh  subjects,  and  which  were  harboured, 
leltered,  provided,  and  furnished,  as  occasion  reipiired,  during  their 
ivastating  career,  iu  i)orts  of  the  realui,  or  in  ports  of  British  Colonies 
nearly  all  parts  of  tiie  globe.  The  table  is  not  supposed  to  he  complete, 
^it  it  presents  such  a  recapitulation  of  the  claims  as  the  evidence  so  far  re- 
vived in  this  Department  enables  me  to' furnish.  Dejicieneies  will  be  supplied 
jreafter.  Most  of  the  claims  have  been  from  time  to  time  brought  by 
3|ourself,  as  the  I'resident  directed,  to  the  notice  of  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
^pnimwit,  and  made  the  subject  of  earnest  and  continued  ajipeal.  That 
~ni)eal  was  intermitted  only  when  Her  Majesty's  Government,  after  elab- 
ate  discussions,  refused  either  to  allow  the  claims  or  to  refer  them  to  a 
)int  Claims  Commission,  or  to  subniit  the  (inestion  of  liability  therein  to 
ly  form  of  arbitration.  The  United  States,  on  the  other  hand,  have  all 
le  tiuu^  insisted  upon  the  claims  as  just  and  valid.  Tiiis  attitude  has 
l;Ken,  and  doubtlessly  continues  to  be,"  well  understood  by  Her  Majesty's 
«overnineut.  The  considerations  which  inclined  this  Government  to 
SnsjuMid  for  a  time  the  pressure  of  the  claims  upon  the  attention  of  Great 
!%-itain,  are  these:  The  political  excitement  in  Great  Britain,  which 
l||ose  during  the  progress  of  the  war,  and  which  did  not  immediately 
"^'ibside  at  its  conclusion,  seemed  to  render  that  period  sonu-what  uil- 
^vourablc  to  a  deliberate  examination  o<"  the  very  grave  i|uestions  whiith 
\e  claims  involve,  &.c.  *  *  Tln^  princi[)le's  iipon  which  the  claims 
re  asserted  by  the  United  States  have  bee.  exi»lained  bv  vonrself  in 
Kb  elaborate  correspondence  with  Karl  Kussell  and  Liu'd  Clarendon.  In 
tpis  respect,  then  seems  to  be  no  de(ici«'n(!v  to  be  supplied  by  tliis  De- 
|»i-tment.  »  »  *  7/  i^  the  PresidlnVs  desire  that  ijou  now  call  the 
pent  ion  of  Lord  Stanley  to  the  claims  in  a  respectful  but  earnest  nmuner, 


28 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPEo'TI.VO    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


,.;:,   1 


I'     . 


V 


and  inforni  him  tliiit,  in  tlie  President's  ju(lj>-ineiit,  a  .vc/^/6'mc«^  o/ //*m 
has  become  urgently  necessarj/  to  a  ro-estal)Iisliine«t  of  entirely  friendly 
relations  between  the  United  States  and  (Jreat  Britain.  jf7t/.s'  Gorerii- 
ment,  irhile  if  tIniH  hi.sisfs  upon  these  purt'u-idar  elaiius,  is  neither  desirous 
nor  willinfj^to  assume  an  attitude  unkind  o.-uncoiiciliatory  towards  Great 
Britain.  If,  on  her  part,  tiiere  are  claims  eitiier  of  a  eommereiai  char- 
acter, or  of  boundary,  or  of  commercial  or  judicial  re^fulation,  which  ITer 
Majesty's  Government  esteem  important  to  brinj»'  unde-  examination  at 
the  present  time,  the  United  States  would,  in  such  case,  be  not  unwill- 
ing to  take  them  into  consiileration  in  connection  with  the  claims  which 
arc  now  presented  on  their  part,  and  with  a  view  to  remove  at  one  time, 
and  by  on»,'  conipreheusive  settlement,  all  cxistin<j  causes  of  misunder- 
standiiift'." 

Mr.  Seward  proceeded  to  recommend,  in  support  of  these  claims,  the 
use  of  the  same  general  arguments,  (inciluding  prominently  the  alleged 
effect  of  the  recognition  of  Southern  belligerency,  and  the  general  injury 
to  the  tiational  commence  of  the  United  States,)  which  had  been  pre- 
viously so  often  employed  by  Mr.  Adams.  Fie  adchMl :  "  27/e  claiinn 
upon  which  we  insist  are  of  larc/c  amount.  They  affect  the  interest  of 
many  thousand  citizens  of  the  United  States,  in  various  parts  of  the  Kei)ul)- 
lie.  The  Justice  of  the  claims  is  sustained  by  the  universal  sentiuieiit 
of  the  peoj»le  of  the  United  States." 

The  claims  si)ecitied  in  the  inclosure  to  this  despatch  (which  is  headed. 
''  Summary  of  claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  ayainst  Great  Britain") 
relate  exclusively  to  losses  sustained  by  the  owners  and  insurers  of 
divers  ships  and  cargoes  captured  by  the  "Alabama,"  the  "Shenan- 
doah," the  "Florida,"  and  the  "Georgia,"  respectively. 

This  desi)at(rh  having  been  communicated  by  Mr.  Adams  to  Lord  Stan- 
ley, his  Lordshij),  through  Sir  F.  Bruce,  (Lord  Stanley  to  Sir  F.  Bruce, 
3()th  Xovember,  18(H!,)  called  attention  to  what  he  supposed  to  be  an 
accidental  error  of  Mr.  SewM'd.  in  mentioning  the  "Sumter;"  which 
"did  not  i)rocee<l  from  a  British  port,  but  was  an  American  vessel,  and 
commenced  her  career  by  escai)ino;  fn)m  the  '  Mississippi.'"  Then,  after 
dealing  with  Mr.  Seward's  general  arguuients,  and  (h'cilining  to  abandon 
the  ground  taken  by  former  Governments,  "so  far  as  to  admit  the  liabil- 
ity of  this  country  for  the  claims  then  and  now  put  forward,"  he  ex- 
pressed his  sense  of  the  "inconvenience  which  arose  from  the  exist- 
en(,'e  of  unsettled  claims  of  this  character  between  two  powerful  and 
friendly  Governments,"  and  his  willingness  to  adopt  the  principle  of  ar!)i 
tration,  i)rovided  that  a  lifting  arbitrator  could  be  found,  and  that  an 
agreement  could  be  conu>  to  as  to  the  points  to  which  arbitration  should 
apply,  lie  «»bjected  to  refer  to  arbitration  the  cpiestion  of  the  alleged 
premature  recognition  of  the  I'onfederate  States  as  a  belligerent ;  sayinj; 
"the  act  complained  of,  while  it  l)ears  very  remotely  on  the  claims  now  in 
question,  is  <»ne  as  to  which  every  State  must  be  held  to  be  the  sole  Judgf 
of  its  duty."  In  another  despatch  to  Sir  F.  Bruce,  of  the  same  date,  lie 
says,  "I  have  contnu'd  myself  ex(!lusively  to  the  consideration  of  ///(' 
Am<'ricini  claims^  put  forward  in  Mr.  Seward\s  despatch  to  Mr.  Adams  oj 
the  '21th  Auyust,  and  arisiny  out  of  the  depredations  committed  on  America 
commerce  by  certain  cruizers  of  tlie  (lonfederate  States.  But,  independ- 
ently ot  these  claims,  there  may,  for  aught  Her  Majesty's  (iovernm<'nt 
know,  be  other  claims  on  the  part  of  American  citizens,  originating  in  tlu' 
events  of  the  late  civil  war,  while  there  certainly  are  very  numerous 
British  claims  arising  out  of  those  events,  which  it  is  very  desiraMc 
should  be  imiuired  into  and  adjusted  between  the  two  countries.  *  *  • 
The  Government  of  the  United  States  have  brought  before  that  of  Her 


iJHiijest; 
lican  ei 
|)atch  ; 

0jlorern 

Miou  "/" 

riof  ''the 

f, n  ex[)i 

|o  Sir  I 

^    In 

IBeward 

fTth  A 

lially  c( 

pie  Biit 

lin  tli( 

Jhe  ins 

p^iverpc 

|uot  onl,\ 

pledge  an 

Vould   I 

ladjudici 

^atislact 

^IBtates  w 

|to  reler 

^•"•hich  h; 


jvidenct 
f-estrictii 
l^aiving 
k-O  waive 
^f  natioi 
i^ny  (|ue.*^ 
^etermin 
f  To  tint 
fnch  an  » 
jCannot  C( 
<nd  inde 
."which  [  1 
ter  at  isst 
iConsiderj 
■ifchose  dej, 

fursued 
uthoritN 
M  the  i] 
>.s',sy',s'  of , 
considi 
Htnd  widci 
fnlly  pre] 
decision  i 
\tioH  of  th 
iio  a  Mixe 
\tn  them.^^ 
Ilie  adjud 
in  which  , 
of  I'urthe 
♦rnnient 
icome  to 
ithc    sped 


BITRA.TIO>f. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


29 


r  ficttlemcnt  of  ihvm 
f  (Mitiivly  friendly 
aiii.  This  Gorern- 
is  neither  desirous 
tory  towards  Great 
I  cominereiai  char- 
ulation,  whicih  ITcr 
lie"  examination  at 
!ase,  be  not  unwill- 
7(  the  claims  ichieh 
emove  at  one  time, 
a  uses  of  misiinder- 

)f  these  clainis,  the 
inently  the  aUej^ed 
I  tlie  general  injury 
lieh  had  been  pro- 
Ided:  "■The  clainiH 
ft'ct  the  interest  of 
parts  of  theKei)ub- 
iniversal  sentiment 

•h  (whieh  is  headed, 
inst  Great  Br  if  ((in") 
rs  and  insurers  of 
na,"  the  "Shcnau- 

l.v- 

(hims  to  Lord  Stan- 
ley to  Sir  F.  Bi'uco, 
supposed  to  be  nii 
"Sumter;"  which 
ineriean  vessel,  and 
ippi.'"    Then,  aftm 
■elinino-  to  abandon 
to  adndt  the  liabil- 
it  forward,"  he  ex- 
)se  from  the  exist- 
two  powerful  and 
e  principle  of  arl)i 
lund,  and  that   an 
arbitration  should 
ion  of  the  alleged 
)ellij>erent ;  sayiM.i; 
i«  the  claims  noic  in 
o  be  the  sole  judiic 
r  the  same  date,  in' 
)nsideration  of  ///' 
■h  to  Mr.  A(la)ns  oj 
mitted  on  American 
Hut,  indepeiiil- 
■sty's  (lovernmeiii 
orijiiimtinji'  in  tlic 
re  very  numerous 
is  very  desii'abli.' 
(>  eountries.  *  *  * 
before  that  of  Her 


JUaJesty  one  class  of  claims  of  a  peculiar  character,  put  forward  by  Amer- 
ican citizens,  in  regard  to  whieli  you  are  authoiized  by  my  other  des- 
j)atch  ,)f  this  date  to  make  a  ])roi)osal  to  Mr.  Seward;  but  Iter  .}fajesty''s 
■^orcrnmcnt  have  no  corresponding  class  of  claims  to  urtje  upon  the  atten- 
lirtH  (fthe  American  Government.''''  And  he,  presently  afterwaids,  si»eaks 
oi' '■'■  the  special  American  claims,  to  which  my  othei'  despatch  alludes," 
fu  expression  which  is  a(h)pted  and  repeated  by  Mr,  Seward,  in  his  reply 
to  Sir  F.  Bruce,  (12th  -January,  l.S(J7.) 

I  In  a  further  despatch  to  I\Ir.  Adams  (12th  January,  1807)  Mr. 
IBeward  Justifies  and  reaflirms  the  sentence  in  his  letter  of  the 
«7th  August,  in  which  tlu^  "  Sumter"  was  mentioned,  as  "substau- 
iially  correct,"  on  the  ground  that  that  vessel  had  been  adnutted  into 
phe  British  ports  of  Trinidad  ami  Gibraltar,  and  "allowed  to  Ixi  sold" 
'|j|in  the  latter  port)  "  to  British  buyers,  I'or  the  acccmnt  and  beneiit  of 
fthe  insurgents;"  and  afterwards  received  under  the  British  flag,  at 
p^iverpool.  Mis  ])ractical  conclusion  is  that  "tlie  United  Stales  think  it 
ifiiot  only  easier,  but  more  desirable,  that  Great  Britain  should  acknowl- 
:^dge  and  satisfy  ///(;  claims  for  indemnity  u'hich  u'c  have  submitted  than  it 
Voiihl  l)e  to  tind  an  equal  and  wise  arbitrator  who  would  consent  to 
ladjudicate  them.  If,  however,  Her  jMaJesty's  GovernnuMit,  lor  reasons 
Isatisfactory  to  them,  should  prefer  the  remedy  of  arbitration,  the  United 
:^tates  would  not  object.  The  United  States,  in  that  case,  would  exi)ect 
ito  reler  the  whole  controversy.  Just  as  it  is  found  in  the  correspondeiu'c 
pvhich  has  taken  i)lace  between  the  two  Governments,  with  such  further 
levidence  ami  arguments  as  either  party  nujy  desire,  without  imposing 
irestrictions,  conditions,  or  limitations  n])on  the  umpire,  and  without 
l^aiving  any  i>rincii)le  or  ai'gument  on  either  side,  'i'hey  canm)t  consent 
M.0  waive  any  (piestion  upcn;  the  consideration  that  it  involves  a  p()int 
lof  natioind  honour;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  they  will  not  reipiire  that 
i{p,ny  (juestion  of  natioind  [>ride  or  honour  shall  be  expressly  ruled  and 
ifletermined  as  such." 

I  To  this  Lord  Sianlev  (!>th  3Iarch,  1807,  to  Sir  F.  Bruce)  replied:  "To 
"Jiueh  an  extensive  and  unlimited  reference  Her  Majesty's  Government 
jCannot  consent,  for  this  reasiwi,  among  others,  that  it  would  admit  of, 
-$nd  indeed  compel,  the  sid)mission  to  the  arbiter  of  the  very  (pu-stion 
^liich  I  have  ahea<ly  said  they  cannot  agree  to  submit.  The  real  mat- 
ter at  issue  between  the  two  Governments,  wlien  kept  ai)art  from  collateral 
Considerations,  is  whether,  in  the  matters  connected  n-ith  the  vcssrts  out  of 
4rh<>se  depredations  the  clai)»s  of  American  citizens  have  arisen,  the  course 

fursued  by  the  British  Governnu'nt,  and  by  those  who  acted  under  its 
utiiority,  was  such  as  would  involve  a  moral  resjfonsibility  on  the  part 
l8lf  the  British  GovernnuMit  to  malce  (food,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  the 
■|o,s',sy',v  of  American  citizens.  This  is  a  plain  and  simple  question,  easily  to 
fie  considered  by  an  arbiter,  and  admitting  of  solution  ivithout  raisiny  other 
md  wider  issues ;  and  on  this  (pu'stion  Her  Majesty's  Governnu'nt  are 
fully  prepared  to  go  to  arbitration,  with  the  further  proviso  that,  if  the 
decision  of  the  arbiter  is  uid'avourable  to  the  British  view,  the  e.ramina- 
•tion  of  the  several  claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  :States  shall  be  referred 
iio  a  Mixed  Commission,  with  a  view  to  the  settlement  of  the  sums  to  be  paid 
bn  //<f«j."  His  Lordship  then  repeats  that,  deeming  it  imiiortant  "that 
the  adjudication  of  this  questicm  should  not  leave  other  questions  of  chdms, 
in  which  their  respective  subjects  or  citizens  may  be  interested,  to  be  matter 
'Of  further  <lisagreement  between  the  two  countries,  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment t  'nk  it  necessary,  in  the  event  of  an  understanding  being 
tomo  to  between  the  two  GovernnuMits  as  to  the  manner  in  whitdi 
■ihe    special    American    claims    (which    have   formed    the    subject    of 


.1. 


I  f. ''•■■■I'^i 


I  > ;  '      ' '   . 


lii 


30 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


the  correspotiflence  of  which  his  preaent  despatch  icas  the  sequel) 
sliould  be  dealt  with,  tluit,  under  a  Oouvetitioii  to  be  separately  and 
simultaneously  concluded,  the  {jeneral  claims  of  the  subjects  and  citizens 
of  the  two  countries  arisinj;^  out  of  the  events  of  the  late  war  should  be 
submitted  to  a  Mixed  Commission,"  &c.  "  Such,  then,"  (he  concluded,) 
"is  the  proposal  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  desire  to  submit  to 
the  Government  of  the  United  States ;  limited  reference  to  arbitration 
in  ref/ard  to  the  .so-called  'Alabama^  claims,  aiul  adjudication  by  means  of 
a  Mixed  Commission  of  general  claims." 

The  first  occasion  on  which  these  words,  "  f/te  so-called  ^  Alabama^ 
claims,''^  occurred  in  the  course  of  the  whole  correspondence  was  shortly 
before  the  date  of  this  letter;  in  a  letter  from  Mr.  Seward  to  Sir  F. 
Bruce  (12th  January,  18(57)  in  wliicli  he  spoke  of  Lord  Stanley's  pre- 
vious despatch  of  the  3()th  November,  ISGO,  as  setting-  forth  "  the  views 
of  Her  Majesty's  Government  of  the  so-called  ^Alabama''  claims  presented 
in  my  despatch  to  Mr.  Adams,''^  and  as  concluding  with  a  proposal  of  "the 
principle  of  arbitration,  attended  with  some  modification  in  regard  to 
those  claims.''^  Lord  Stanley  himself  had  spoken  of  "the  settlement  of 
the  '■Alabama''  and  other  claims,"  by  means  of  the  proposals  which  he 
had  authorized  Sir  F.  Bruce  to  make,  in  a  note  to  Sir  F.  Bruce,  dated 
the  24th  Januarj',  1807.  The  same  phrase,  "Alabama  claims,"  hail  also 
been  used  on  one  or  two  occasions,  with  reference  to  the  same  proposed 
settlement,  in  articles  which  previously  appeared  in  some  of  the  English 
newspapers  during  the  autumn  of  1806. 

Lord  Stanley's  letter  of  the  9th  March,  1867,  was,  by  his  direction, 
read  to,  and  a  copy  left  with,  Mr.  Seward ;  and  on  the  2d  May,  1867, 
Mr.  Adams  communicated  to  Lord  Stanley  the  substance  of  Mr.  Seward's 
reply,  saying  that  "the  Government  of  the  United  States  adhere  to  the 
view  which  they  formerly  expressed  as  to  the  best  way  of  dealing  with 
these  claims.  They  cannot,  consequently,  consent  to  a  special  and  pe- 
culiar limitation  of  arbitrament  in  regard  to  the  '■Alabama''  claims,  such 
as  Her  Majesty's  Government  suggest.  They  cannot  give  any  x)refer- 
ence  to  the  '■Alabama''  claims  over  others,  in  regard  to  the  form  of  arbit- 
rament suggested ;  an.d,  while  they  agree  that  all  mutual  claims  which 
arose  during  tlie  civil  war  between  citizens  and  subjects  of  the  two  coun- 
tries ought  to  be  amicably  and  speedily  adjusted,  they  must  insist  that 
they  must  be  adjusted  by  one  and  the  same  form  of  tribunal,  with  like 
and  the  same  forms,  and  on  principles  common  to  all."  (Lord  Stanley 
to  Sir  F.  Bruce,  2d  May,  1807.) 

Tlie  language  of  this  communication  led  Lord  Stanley  to  tiiiuk  that 
his  proposal  might,  periiai)s,  have  been  understood  as  applying  only  "  to 
tlie  claims  arising  out  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Alabama,  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  those  arising  out  of  the  like  proceedings  of  the  Florida,  Shenan- 
doah, and  Georgia."  He  therefore  wrote  to  Sir  F.  Bruce  on  the  2-lth 
of  May,  1867,  saying,  "  It  is  important  to  clear  up  this  point ;  ami  you 
will,  therefore,  state  to  Mr.  Seward  that  the  offer  to  go  to  arbitration  was 
not  restricted  to  the  claims  arising  out  of  the  proccedinf/s  of  the  ^Alabama,''  but 
applied  equally  to  those  arisiny  out  of  the  liheproceediny  of  the  other  vessels 
that  I  have  nained.^'  Referring  again  to  the  terms  of  Ins  despatch  of  the 
9th  of  March,  he  then  directs  Sir  F.  Bruce  to  inform  Mr.  Seward  that  ^^thcre 
was  no  intention  on  the  part  of  Her  Majesty\s  Government  to  yive  any  pref- 
erence, in  regard  to  the  form  of  arbitrament,  to  the  '■Alabama''  claims  over 
claims  in  t!te  like  cateyory,''''  thinking  that  there  must  have  been  some 
misapprehension  on  this  point,  because  "  the  question  of  disposing  of 
general  claims,  in  contradistinction  to  the  specific  claims  arisiny  out  of 
the  procced'uiys  of  the  '•Alabama,^  and  vessels  of  thai  class,  had  not  hitherto 


RATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARIHTRATION. 


31 


((s  the  sequel) 
separately  atul 
>cts  and  citizens 
war  should  be 
[he  concluded,) 
re  to  submit  to 
!  to  arbitration 
Du  by  means  of 

Ikd  '■Alabama'' 
ice  was  shortly 
,vard  to  Sir  F. 
Stanley's  pre- 
rth  "  the  views 
;laims  presented 
roposal  of  "the 
on  in  regard  to 
le  •settlement  of 
osals  which  he 
?.  Bruce,  dated 
aims,"  had  also 
same  proposed 
;  of  the  English 

\f  his  direction, 

i  2d  May,  1867, 

of  ^Ir.  Seward's 

fs  adhere  to  the 

f  dealing  with 

)ecial  and  pe- 

'  claims,  such 

ive  any  prefer- 

form  of  arbit- 

claims  which 

the  two  coun- 

lust  insist  that 

unal,  with  like 

(Lord  Stanley 

to  tiiinlc  that 

ying  only  "  to 

to  the  exclu- 

orida,  Shenau 

ce  on  the  24th 

loint;  and  you 

arbitration  was 

^Alabama,'' but 

the  other  vessels 

espatch  of  the 

•ard  that  "Merc 

0  f/ive  any  pre/- 

irt'  claims  over 

ive  been  some 

disposing  of 

s  arisinfi  out  of 

id  not  hitherto 


hocn  matter  of  controversy  between  the  two  Governments."  Shortly 
afterward,  having  spoken  of  "  the  frfit  or  'Alabama''  class  of  claims,'''  he 
says,  "//te  one  class,  or  the  specific  claims,  such  as  those  arisiuff  out  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  ^Alabama''  and  such  vessels,  depend  for  their  settlement 
on  the  solution  of  what  may  be  called  an  abstract  question,  namely, 
whether,  in  the  matters  connected  with  the  vessels,  out  of  tchose  depre- 
dations the  claims  of  American  citizens  have  arisen,  the  course  i)nrsued 
by  the  British  Government,  and  those  who  acted  under  its  authority, 
was  such  as  would  involve  a  moral  responsibility  on  the  part  of  the 
British  Government  to  make  good,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  losses  of 
American  citizens,''^  and  he  repeats  his  former  offer  of  sei)arate  modes  of 
arbitration,  as  to  the  two  classes  of  claims,  viz,  ^^  those  of  the  '■Alabama'' 
(7rt.ss,"  or  "the  ^Alabama''  and  such  like  claims,'''  and  the  general  claims  of 
the  citizens  of  both  countries. 

Further  discussion  ensued.  Mr.  Seward,  on  the  12th  of  August, 
1807,  (in  a  despatch  communicated  by  Mr.  Adams,)  said  that  he  luider- 
stood  the  British  olfer  "to  be  at  once  comprehensive  and  suflbciently 
jnecise  to  conclude  all  the  claims  of  American  citizens  for  depreda- 
tions on  their  commerce  during  the  late  rebellion,  which  had  been  the 
subject  of  compla'int  on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
but  that  the  Government  of  tiie  United  States  would  deem  itself 
at  liberty  to  insist  before  the  arbitrator  that  the  actual  proceedings 
and  relations  of  the  British  Government,  its  officers,  agents,  and 
subjects,  toward  the  United  States,  in  regard  to  the  rebellion  and 
the  rebels,  as  they  occurred  during  that  rebellion,  were  among  the  mat- 
ters which  were  connected  with  the  vessels  whose  depredations  were  com- 
plained of."  He  then  objected  to  the  constitution  of  two  different  tri- 
bunals, "  one  an  arbiter  to  determine  the  question  of  the  moral  resi)on- 
sihilitj'  of  the  British  Government  («re(7rt»v/fo  the  vessels  of  the  '•Alabama'' 
class,  and  the  other  a  Mixed  Commission  to  adjudicate  the  so-called 
general  claims  on  both  sides,"  and  said  that  "in  every  case  "  his  Gov- 
ernment "agreed  only  to  unrestricted  arbitration."  (Lord  Staidey  to 
Sir  F.  Bruce,  10th  September,  1S(J7.) 

Lord  Stanley,  in  his  reply  of  the  10th  November,  (througli  ]Mr.  Ford, 
lOtli  November,  1S()7,)  used  further  arguments  in  supi»ort  ot  the  British 
projmsal,  designating  throughout  the  si)ecial  class  of  claims  as  "  the  so- 
called  Alabama  claims." 

After  some  intermission  the  correspondence  was  resumed  by  a  des- 
patch of  ^Ir.  Seward  to  IVlr.  Adams,  expressing  his  wish  "that  some 
nieiiiis  might  be  found  of  arranging  the  differences  now  existing  be- 
tween p]ngland  and  the  United  States,"  which  was  comuumicated  to 
Lord  Stanley  on  the  loth  February,  1808.  The  (piestions  causing  tliese 
differences  were  thus  enumerated  by  Mr.  Seward:  "1st.  The  Alabama 
claims.  2d.  The  San  Juan  Question.  3d.  The  Question  of  Natural- 
ized Citizens,  their  rights  and  position.  4th.  The  Fishery  Question ;"' 
and  he  suggested  that  "  the  true  method  of  <lealing  with  all  these  mat- 
ters was  by  treating  them  jointly,  and  endeavouring,  by  means  of  a 
Conference,  to  settle  them  all."  (Lord  Stanley  to  ]\Ir.  Thornton,  loth 
February,  1808.) 

Negotiations  followed,  in  the  first  instance  directed  to  the  third  and 
second  of  these  four  questions.  On  the  20th  October,  Mr.  Beverdy 
Johnson  (who  had  now  succee<led  Mr.  Adams)  called  on  Lord  Stanley 
"to  discuss  with  me"  (says  Lord  Stanley,  in  a  desi)atch  of  21st  Octo- 
ber, 1808,  to  Mr.  Thornton)  "  the  (pu'stiou  of  the  Alabama  claims,"  pro- 
pctsing  a  Mixed  Commission,  to  wliom  "all  the  claims  on  both  sides'" 
should  be  referred.     Lord   Stanley  "pointed  out  the  inapplicability 


r 


32 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


'r:^ 


(.■:•■ 


M^'v. 


of  this  Dietliod  of  i)roc'('ediiig,  iis  aitplicd  to  tlio  Ahthama  cJaimn  and 
otliern  of  the  same  claxs,''^  iiiul  suyj-oHted,  as  iirbitratov,  the  head  of  ii 
friendly  State.  As  to  the  roco^iiiitioii  of  l)ellijj;(!reiie.v,  lie  said  that  Ilcr 
Majesty's  (roveriiau'iit  could  aot  depart  from  the  position  wldeh  they 
had  taken  up,  ''but  that  he  saw  no  impossibility  in  so  franiiuf;-  the  refer- 
ence as  that  by  mutual  consent,  either  tacit  or  express,  the  ditliculty 
uii^ht  be  avoided." 

On  tiie  10th  November,  1808,  a  Convention  was  accordinryly  signed 
(subject  to  ratification)  between  Lord  Stanley,  on  the  part  of  Her 
Majesty,  and  Mr.  Johnson  on  the  part  of  the  United  States.  By  article 
I  of  this  Convention  it  was  agreed  that  "all  clahns  of  mibjccln  of  Her 
Britann'w  Majesty  upon  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  all 
claims  on  the  part  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  upon  the  Government  of 
Her  Britannic  Majesti/,  which  might  have  been  presented  to  either  Gov- 
ernment for  its  interi)()sition  witli  the  other  since  tlie  -!Oth  of  .luly,  18r);3, 
*  *  aad  which  j'et  remain  unsettled,  as  well  as  any  other  such  claims 
■which  might  be  presented  witliin  the  time  spt'citied  in  Article  III,"  (viz: 
within  six  mouths  from  the  day  of  tlie  first  meeting  of  tlio  Commissioners, 
unless  they  or  tlie  Arbitrator  or  Umpire  should  allow  a  further  time,) 
should  be  referred  t-o  four  Commissioners,  with  provision  for  an  arbitration 
or  umpirage,  in  case  of  their  being  unable  to  como  to  a  decision  on  any 
claim.  Artiele  IV  was  in  these  terms:  "The  Commissioners  shall  have 
power  to  adjudicate  upon  the  class  of  claims  referrei  to  in  the  official  corre- 
spondence hetioeen  the  two  Governments  as  the  '■Alabama''  claims^  but  before 
any  of  snch  claims  is  taken  into  consideration  by  them,  the  two  High 
Contracting  Parties  shall  lis  upon  some  Sovereign  or  Head  of  a  friendly 
State  as  an  Arbitrator  in  resjiect  of  such  claims,  to  whom  such  class  of 
claims  shall  be  referred,  in  case  the  Commissioners  shall  be  unable  to 
come  to  an  unanimous  decision  ui)on  the  same." 

Article  VI  provided  that,  "with  regard  to  the  heforcmentioned  ^Ala- 
hama^  class  of  claims,  neither  Government  shall  make  out  a  case  in  sup- 
l)ort  of  its  position,  nor  shall  any  i)erson  be  heard  for  <u"  against  any 
such  claim.  Tlu'.  ofticial  correspondence  which  has  already  taken  place 
between  the  two  Governments  respecting  the  (juestions  at  issue  shall 
alone  be  laid  before  the  Commissioners;  and  (in  the  event  of  their  not 
coming  to  an  unanimous  decision  as  [U'ovided  in  Article  IV)  then  before 
the  Arbitrator,  without  argument  written  or  verbal,  aiul  without  the 
production  of  any  further  evidence.  The  Commissioners,  unanimously, 
or  the  Arbitrator,  shall,  however,  be  at  liberty  to  call  for  argumeat  oi' 
further  evidence,  if  th«'y  or  he  shall  deem  it  necessary." 

Down  to  this  point  it  is  manifest  that,  in  all  the  communications  be- 
tween the  two  countries,  the  claims  known  aiul  referred  to  as  "  the 
'Alabama'  claims,"  were  claims  for  direct  dainaoe  suffered  ht/  American 
citizens  through-  the  acts  of  the  "Alabama"  and  similar  vessels,  and 
such  claims  only. 

AVhen  the  terms  of  this  convention  became  known  in  America,  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  dt'sired  certain  alterations  to  be  made 
in  it,  none  of  which  had  any  tendency  either  to  enlarge  the  category  of 
the  claims  in  (juestion,  or  to  (diange  the  sense  or  application  of  th*. 
phrase  "the  'Alabanm'  claims."  The  (u)rrespondence, as  to  the  modifi- 
cations desired,  continued  till  January,  lS(i!),  when  (Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
eriimeiit  having  agreed  to  the  alterations  t'len  proposed  by  Mr.  Seward) 
the  amended  Convention  of  the  14th  of  January,  180!),  was  signed  by 
Lord  Clarendon  and  !Mr.  Keverdy  Jcdinson. 

The  correspondence  of  this  period  thvoughout  maintains  and  conflnns 
the  sense  which  the  words  of  "the  '  irMabania'  claims," or  "  the  so-culleil 


CO 

^Alabama 

)e('enil»ei' 

Ind  cont'ci 

ponveinii) 

]l<iims  ;'' 

Al'dxima ' 

hid  othtrs 

llirase  iis( 

lied  in  tii 

irrvil  to  ii 

Ahthama 

[■(ly  -John! 

lewiU'd, 

'Mtioii,  al 
liiiiied  i)y 
|ie  place 
loveriiine 
jus  to   the 
ISIiS.  Mr.  1 
he  CoMve 
ioned  in  a 
tuna  '  claiii 
AldhaiiHt ' 
Mr.  llvvi 
Je('('int»er) 
hiitedStat 
liive  no  ob 
lie    couimi 
[l((haiii(( ' 
lis  clause, 
laims.     Til 
becial  dire 
icy  tlioiigl 
biiveiiieiit 
lot  admit 
ichidcfh  as 
)niprelu'us 
is  to  be  (' 
\ass  (f  clai 
claims  f; 
is  f/ie  oh'n 
well  as  ) 
niiestly  <l( 
jcision.     1 
K)  disciiniii 
Material  di,> 
>eiit;  liiit 

all  other 
I)  good  end 
Viims,  more 
fe  ta-o  coun 
)t  aijrec  tt 
lese  reaso! 
?en  contiiii 
'this  (!ontr 
►ntrovertei 
)reign  Atf; 

3  G  A 


ITRATION. 


CORKESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


33 


hama  claimn  and 
•,  the  head  of  a 
lie  Siiid  tliiit  llcr 
tioii  wliicli  tlu'y 
[Viiiiiiiif;'  the  refer- 
MS,  the  difliciilty 

cordiiijyly  vsigued 
the  i>iirt  of  Her 
:iites.  By  artielc 
of  .subjeetn  of  Her 
(i  States,  and  nil 
flic  Government  of 
eil  to  either  Gov- 
iGth  of  .liily,  1853, 
)ther  .such  chiiiiis 
.Vitiele  III," (viz: 
eODiumis.siouer.s, 
a  further  time,) 
for  ail  arbitration 

I  (leei.siou  on  any 
iioiiers  shall  have 

II  the  ojjic'ud  corre- 
clahns,,  but  before 
sill,  the  two  llif>h 
lead  of  a  friendly 
loiii  such  i'latis  vf 
lall   be  unable  to 

e-mcntioncd  ^Ala- 

out  a  case  in  sup- 

M  or  against  any 

ady  taken  place 

ins  at  issue  shall 

eiit  of  their  not 

IV)  tiien  before 

iiid  without  the 

rs,  uuiUiiniously, 

for  ar^"(i:ucnt  oi 

nnuinications  be- 
irred  to  as  "  the 

red  by  American 
ilar  vessels,  and 

in  America,  the 
itious  to  be  made 

the  category  of 
)plication  of  tlii, 
as  to  the  niodili- 
>r  Majesty's  Gov- 
l  by  Mr.  Seward) 
I,  was  signed  by 

ins  and  con  (inns 
or  "  the  socalkil 


[Aliibaina' claims,"  had  now  acquired.     In  Lord  Stanley's  despatch  of 

K'ceniber  S,  1S(».S,  to  Mr.  Thornton,  memoranda  of  several  coiisidtations 

Lid  conferences  with  Mr.  Keverdy  .rohnson,  ])rior  to  the  signatur*'  of  the 

^onvciirion    of  the   lOth    November,  were  inclosed.     ^^  The  '■  Aloha  ma'' 

ioimK  ;"'    '■'the  '  Alnlmma''  anil    other   similar   claims;"    '■'the  .so  called 

[lahama '  and  other  similar  claims,'''  and  •'  the  so-called  '  Alabama  '  claims, 

\vd  others  included  under  the  same  head.''''   are  the  s<'veral  viirieties  of 

lluiisc  used  in  these  memoranda  to  describe  the  subject,  uUiniafely  de- 

ned  in  the  Fourth  Article  of  that  Convention  as  " ///fi  class  of  cUtims  re- 

frred  to  in  the  olJieial  correspondence  beta-een  the  tiro  (iorernments  as  the 

AUdiama''  claiinsP    In  a  letter  of  the  12th  Novend)er,  lSi58,  Mr.  Kev- 

rdy -lolinson,  while  communicating  a  telegi'a])hic  despatch  from   .Mr. 


nviU'd,  (in   which    a 


il    apjiroval    of   tiu'    terniR    of   the    Coii- 


'iition,  afterwards  moditied  in  various  important  ]ioints,  was  accom- 

anied  by  a  stipulation  that  Washington,  and  not  London,  should  be 

(le  place  ol'  nu'cting  of  the  Commissioners,  to  which   Her  Majesty's 

lovernmeiit  assentecl,)  said.  "I  think  the  change  will  be  <lisit(l\antage- 

lus  to   the '■  Alabama''  claimants.''''     in  a   despatch   of  30th  November, 

|.S!;s,  Mr.  Thornton  stated  tiui  objections  then  urged  by  .Mr.  Seward  to 

lie  Convention;  in  which  Mr.  Seward  also  sjioke  of  the  chiiiiis  nien- 

loiied  in  article  IV  as  "  the  '■Alabama^  and  war  claims,'''  and  ''  ihe  '  Ala- 

f( ma ''  claims,''^  and  of  the  persons  intereste«l  in  those  chiiiiis  as  "  ^Ae 

Alabama''  claimants'''     .Mr.  Seward's  desi)atch  of  the  27tli  NovfMuber 

Mr.  IJcverdy  .lohnsou  (coiuinunicat(!d  to  Lord  Clarendon  on  the  22d 

)eceinber)  repeatedly  employs  the  same  language.      lie  says,   "The 

fiiitcd  States  are  oblige<l  to  disallow  this  Article  IV.    The  United  States 

jave  no  objection  to  the  llrst  chinse  of  the  Article,  which  declines  that 

le   commissioners  shall  have    ])ower  to  adjudicate  upon  the  so  called 

ilalxima'  claims.     IiHleed,the  United   States  would  willingly  retain 

lis  cliiuse,  bec'aiise  of  its  exiilicitness  with  regard  to  the  '■Alabama^ 

laims.     Tiiey  did  not,  in  their  instructions  to  you,  insist  upon  such  a 

lieciiil  direction  in  regard  to  the  ^  Alalxona''  claims  ;  but  only  because 

ley  tliought  that  special  mention  of  these  claims  might  be  deemed  in- 

bnvciiieiit  on  tlu^  jiart  of  Her  ^Majesty's  Government;  while  it  (!Ould 

jot  iidmit  of  doubt  that  these  so-called  -  Alabanui''  claims  n-cre  plainhi 

xcludvd.  as  well  as  all  other  claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  >Slates,  in  the 

)mpi'eheiisive  des(;ri]>tion  of  claims  contained  in  Article  I.     Secondly, 

is  to  be  considered  by  Her  ^Majesty's  (ioveriunent  that  the  '■Alabama^ 
\ass  of  claims  constitute  the  largest  and  most  material  of  the  entire  viafis 

claims  <f  citizenH  of  the  United  States  against  Great  Jiritain,  tchich 
is  the  (d)ject  of  the  t'onrention  to  adjust.     Upon  the  '■  Alab((ma^  claims, 

well  as  all  others,  this  Government  is  content  to  obtain,  and  most 
iriiestly  desires,  a  perfectly  fair,  etpnil,  and  imjiartiiil  judicial  trial  and 
ecisioii.  Tills  (lOvernmeiit  has  always  e\i)licitly  stat<'d  iliat  it  asks 
K)  (liseiiminatiou  in  favor  of  the  '  Alaliama  '  claims,  and  can  admit  of  no 
Material  (liscrimination  against  them  in  the  forms  of  trial  and  judg- 
lent:  but    must,  on  the  contrary,  have  tliem  jilaced  on  the  same  basis 

all  otlier  claims."  *****  ujf  probably  would  conduce  to 
i)  good  end  to  set  forth,  on  this  occasion,  the  reasons  why ///e  '■Abdxtma^ 
V(//;/.s',  more  than  anij  other  cla,ss  of  international  claims  c.ristiu<j  latu'ccn 
\e  in-o  countries,  are  the  very  claims  aijainst  n-hich  the  United  States  can- 
)t  aijree  to,  or  admit  of  any  pr(judicial  discrimiiiation.  To  pr<'sent 
iesi'  reasons  now  would  be  simjiiy  to  restate  arguments  wliicii  have 
?eii  continually  presented  by  this  Department  in  all  the  former  stages 
'this  controversy  ;  while  it  is  fair  to  admit  that  these  reasons  have  been 
^ntroverted  with  e(iual  perseverance  by  Her  Majesty's  Department  for 
)reign  Atfairs." 

o  G  A 


34 


CORllKSPONDENCE   RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITKATION. 


Lii 


•.1  1- 
■•(  I':-  •» 


% 


Tlio  jjeneral  result  of  this  corrcspondtMicc  was  that,  in  the  Convention 
of  the  14th  .liiiiuaiy,  18(Jt>,  otlier  provisions  were  sjibstitutetl   for  tliost; 
of  tJH'  IVtii  and  Vlth  Articles  of  tiie  Convention  of  KMii  November, 
18(».S,  t(»  which  the  United  States  Government  had  objected ;    and  the 
special  meiiti(»n  of  tiie  '•  Alabama"  was  transfened  from  those  Articles; 
to  Article  I,  which  provide<l'*  that  all  claims  on  the  putt  o/snhjects  of  livr 
liritunnic  Mtijc.sty  upon  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  alii 
claim.s  mi  the  ptirf  of  citizens  of  the  United  Sttiten  upon  the  Gorernmcnt  oj'\ 
Her  Ihitannie  Majesty,  incluithiif  the  Hovalled  '' Alabama' vlnhnny  \\\\'\m\ 
may  have  been  presented  to  either  Government  for  its  interposition 
witli  tlie  other  since  the  20th  of  .July,  l.S.">;j,      *         #         #      and  wiiicli  | 
yet  remain  unsettled,  as  well  as  any  otiier  such  claims  which  may  bo< 
presented  within  the  time  specified  in  Article  III  of  this  Convention,! 
whether  or  not  arising  out  of  the  late  civil  war  in  the  United  States,] 
shall  l)e  referred,"  (S:c. 

On  the  -LM  Febrimry,  1SG9,  Mr.  Thornton  reported  to  Lord  Clareiij 
don  the  Resolution  of  a  majority  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  recommendin}'' the  ScMiate  not  tol 
ratify  this  Convention,  Mr.  Sumner,  who  moved  the  resolution,  having^ 
said  "  that  it  eovered  none  of  the  prineiples  for  which  the  United  States  | 
had  always  contended."    lie  also  inclosed  a  Resolution  of  the  Legisla- ' 
ture  of  Massachusett'*,  "  protesting  against  tiie  ratilication  of  any  Con- 
vention which  (lid  not  admit  the  liability  of  England  for  the  acts  of  thci 
^Alabama  '  and  her  con.wrts.''^ 

On  the  2l'd  ]\Iarcli,  1801),  Mr.  Keverdy  Johnson  (without  any  sjiecial 
instructions)  called   upon    Lord   Clarendon,  and    proposed   a  further; 
change   in   the   1st   Article   of  the   Convention,    which    he    thought  j 
"  would  satisfactorily  meet  the  objections  entertained  by  the  Senate  to! 
the  Convention,   and   would   secure   its   ratification    by   that   body."'| 
This  n(^w  change  consisted  in  the  introduction  of  '■^  all  claims  on  thc'i 
part  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty''s   Government  tqwn  the  Gorernmcnt  ojl 
the  United  iSitites,  and  all  claims  on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  thel 
United  States  upon  the  Government  of  Her  Britannic  il/<(yV'.s7i!/,"  as  well 
as  all  claims  of  subjects  and  citizens,  as  to  which  the  language  of  the* 
Convention  would  have  remained   unaltered.     Lord  Clarendon  reports| 
what  then  took  place  in  his  despatch  to  Mr.  Thornton,  (Marcli  2li,  1800.) 
"I  remarked  to  Mr.  Johnson  that  his  projmsal  would  introduce  an  en- 
tirely new  feature  into  the  Convention,  which  was  for  the  settlement  of| 
claims  between  tlie  subjects  and  citizens  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United | 
States,  but  that  thetico  Governments  not  having  put  forivard  any  claims  o\\\ 
each  other,  I  could  oidy  suppose  that  his  object  was  to  favor  the  intro- 
duction of  some  claim  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  for  injury? 
sustained  on  account  of  the  ])()licy  pursued  by  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 1 
meut.    Mr.  Keverdy  Johnson  did  not  object  to  this  interpretation  of  his 
aineuduient,  but  -aid  that  //"  claims  to  compensation  on  account  of  thc^ 
recognition  by  the  British  Government  of  the  belligerent  rights  of  the  Con- 
federates tvere  brought  for u-ard  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States,'^ 
the  British  Government  might,  on  its  part,  bring  forward  claims  to  compen- 
sation for  damages  done  to  British  subjects  by  American  blockades,  ivhichA 
if  the  Confederates  were  not  belligerents,  were  illegally  enforced  againsn 
tkemJ'^    Lord  Clarendon  then,  after  referring  to  the  proofs  which  IIei'| 
Majesty's  Government  had  given  of  their  willingness  to  make  any  reason- 
able amendments  to  meet  the  wishes  of  the  United  States,  and  to  the| 
dit!erence  in  the  course  of  piM)ceeding  adopted  in  America,  said  "thatj 
it  did  not  seem  proper  for  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  take  any  furtheri 
step  in  tlie  nuitter,  or  to  adopt  any  amendment  to  the  Convention, eveu J 
if  it  had  been  free  from  objection." 


JITRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESrECTING   GENEVA    ARniTRATION. 


35 


in  the  Convention  j 
stituted   for  tlioso 

lOtii  NovcinluT, 
Itjocted  ;  and  the  1 
oni  those  Aiti(!U'.S; 
t  of  snhjevts  of  Her 
'd  States,  and  aUi 
the  Goi'enimcnt  of 
[ina'  clrdiits,  which 
r  its  interposition 
*  and  wliicli 
ms  which  may  bc' 

tliis  Convention, I 
}(i  United  States, 

1  to  Lord  Chirenj 
Foreign  Relations 
the  SiMuite  not  to| 
resolution,  having* 
the  United  States! 
i)n  of  the  Leyisla- 
;ation  of  any  Con-^ 
for  the  acts  of  thd^ 

ithout  any  siieciali 
roposed   a  further  I 
Inch    he    thouglit; 
by  tlui  Senate  to! 

by   that   body."'| 
"  all  ehdms  on  thei 
the  Goreninicnt  of 
Government  of  the 

Majesfy,''^  as  well 
e  lanj;uage  of  the 
'laren<lon  reports 
I,  (March  liL',  1809.) 
|l  introduce  an  en- 

the  settlement  of 
in  ami  the  United 

ard  any  claims  o)i| 

0  favor  the  intro- 

1  States  for  injury 
ilajesty's  Govern- 1 
-erpretation  of  his 

<n  account  of  tk^ 
rights  of  the  Con- 
the  United  States, 
claims  to  compen- 
blockades,  which, 
enforced  against 
k'oofs  which  Her 
jraake  any  reason-  ^ 
;ate8,  and  to  the| 
lerica,  said  "that: 
Itake  any  further] 
poll  vention,  even 


IMr.  Keverdy  Johnson  (still  without  authority)  renewed  his  i)roposi- 
tion,  in  a  letter  to  Lord  Clarendon,  dated  2~>th  March,  1S(»1),  in  which 
lie  stated  that  he  had  reason  to  believe  tiiat  the  objection  of  the  Senate 
)f  the  L'nited  States  to  the  Convention  cons'sted  "in  the  fact  tliat  the 
|C(»i!vention  provided  only  for  the  settleinen,    )y  arbitration  of  the  indi- 
fi-iilual  claims  of  British  subjects  and  American  citizens  upon  the  resinvtivc 
Ui'iirnuiients,  and  not  for  any  claims  n-hich  either   Gorernmcnt,  as  such, 
\ni(iht  have  upon  the  other.''^     "  My  Government,''^  he  added,  "  believe,  as  I 
[ani  now  advised,  that  it  has  a  claim  of  its  own  upon  Her  Majesty\s  Gov- 
vrnment,  because  of  the  consequences  resulting  from  a  premature  recogni- 
tion of  the  Confederates  during  our  late  war,  and  from  the  fitting  out  of 
Hie 'Alabama' and  other  similar  vessels  in  Her  Majesty's  ports,  «/u/ 
[froni  their  permitted  entrance  into  other  ports  to  be  refitted  and  pro- 
lisionetl  during  their  piratical  cruise.     The  existence  of  such  a  claim 
makes  it  as  necessary  that  its  ascertainment  and  adjustment  shall  be 
jnovided  for  as  the  individual  cUiims  growing  out  of  the  same  cinnim- 
Istaiices." 

The  United  States  Government,  down  to  this  time,  liad  insisted  that 
the  new  Convention  ought  strictly  to  follow  the  precedent  of  the  Con- 
tention of  1853,  which  contained  no  provision  for  any  species  of  public 
claims.     Lord  Clarendon,  therefore,  on   the  8th  of  April,  180!),  thus 
uiswered  Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson :  "  Her  Majesty's  Government  could  not 
fail  to  observe  that  this  proposal  involved  a  wide  departure  from  the 
tenor  and  terms  of  the  Convention  of  1853,  to  which,  in  compliance 
Iwitli  your  instructions,  you  have  constantly  pressed  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
lerninent  to  adhere,  as  necessary  to  insure  the  ratification  of  a  new  Con- 
Ivention  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.    No  undue  importance 
lis  attached  to  this  deviation ;    but  I  beg  leave  to  inform  you  that, 
lin    the  opinion    of   Her    Majesty's    Government,   it  w«)uld   serve  no 
luseful    purpose    now  to   consider  any   amendment  to    a  Convention 
JAvhich  gave   full  effect  to  the  wishes  of  the  United  States  Ciovern- 
Iment,  and   was  approved  by   the   late   President    and    Secretary  of 
Istate,    who    referred    it    for    ratification    to    the    Senate,    Avhere    it 
lappears  to  have  encountered  objections,  the  nature  of  which  has  not 
jheen  otiicially  made  known  to  Her  Majesty's  Government." 

Mr.  Keverdy  Johnson,  on  the  9th  of  April,  replied  that  "the  design 
lof  tlie  Convention  of  1853  was  to  settle  all  claims  which  either  Govern- 
pnent,  in  behalf  of  its  own  citizens  or  subjects,  might  have  upon  the 
)ther.  *  *  *  *  At  that  time  neither  Government,  as  such,  made  a 
^lemand  upon  the  other.  But  that,  as  my  proposition  assumes,  is  not  the  case 
\)ww.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  believes  that  it  has,  in  its  own 
right,  a  claim  upon  the  Government  of  Her  Majesty.  In  order,  therefore, 
to  a  full  settlement  of  all  existing  claims,  it  is  necessary  that  the  one 
hchich  my  Government  maJics,  and  any  corresponding  claim  which  Her  Ma- 
jesty\<i  Government  may  have  upon  the  United  States,  should  be  included 
Iwithin  the  Convention  of  the  14th  January,  1809.  My  instructions, 
\to  which  Yonr  Lordship  refers,  were  to  provide  for  the  settlement  of  the 
\claims  mentioned  in  such  instructions  by  a  Convention  upon  the  model  of 
Itlie  one  for  February,  1853.  That  1  did  not  suggest  in  the  negotiations 
hchich  led  to  the  Convention  of  January  ,•  the  including  within  it  any  Gov- 
\ernmental  claims  teas  because  my  instructions  only  referred  to  the  individ- 
hial  claims  of  citizens  and  subjects.  1  forbear  to  speculate  as  to  the 
[grounds  upon  which  my  instructions  were  .so  limited.''^ 

Her  Majesty's  Government  adhered  to  their  decision  not  to  entertain 
[at  all  the  suggestion  thus  made  by  Mr.  Keverdy  Johnson ;  and  they  in- 
[timated  (iu  correction  of  an  erroneous  inference  drawn  by  him  from  the 


If 


It;  s 


I 


t  ■'• 


I  ' 


'J'  I",-,  n  , 


fu;  ■■:■ 
ill'.,.  • 


It 


it 


..I..  ■■■ 


ill" 


H 


CORRESPONDRNCK    REHPKCTINa    OENEVA    ARIUTRATION. 


COIil 


ooncliuliiij;  seiitoiico  of  Lord  Clurcndon's  letter  of  tlio  Stli  A]»ril)  tliat 
it  was  not  to  lie  siipixtscd  that  tin's  proiiosal  wonl<l  he  acccptnhle  to  Mer 
jMiiJcsty's  (lOVcniiiM'iit,  even  if  it  were  made  or  rejx'ated  under  |)osilivo 
iiistnu'tions  from  tlie  Unit«'d  States  (Joveriimeiit,  and  with  tlie  prospect 
of  terminatiiifj' the  entire  controversy.  (Lord  Clarendon  to  Mr.  .John-, 
son,  ]rttli  April,  lS(i{);  and  -Mr.  -Johnson's  reply,  l(i//(  April,  1S(!!>.) 

From  this  incident  in  the  histoiy  of  the  iieji'otiations  the  following 
conclusions  of  fact  result: 

1.  That  .Mr,  I'everdy  Johnson's  instinctioiis  from  his  (lovernmeiit 
never  extended  to  the  assertion  or  settlement  of  any  other  claims  thnn 
tliose  of  individual  citi/ens  of  th(^  Uinted  States  against  (Jreat  I'ritaiii. 

L'.  That  in  su;;f;'estiii,!4'  (for  the  fust  time)  the  possible  existence  of  pub- 
lic <'laims  on  behalf  of  liis  (Jovernment,  he  acted  without  authority. 

.'?.  That  no  such  ])ubli(!  claitus  as  those  of  which  the  existence  was 
HU,ujiested  by  him  had  ever  been  presenti'd  or  notified ;  nor  were,  even 
then,  ill  any  manner  detined. 

■1.  That  the  i)ubli<^  claims,  of  which  the  ])ossible  existence  was  so  sii;' 
gest(Ml,  were  not  claims  "f;iowin<i"  or  arisinj?  (sim]»ly)  "out  of  the  acts 
of'' the  "Alabama,'' or  any  other  vessels ;  but  claims  "  because  of  t  lie 
c(Uisc(pieiic(>s  resnltiiifi"  i'rom  u  ]u<Mnature  ri'cojiuition  of  the  Confedc 
rates  duiin;^' the  war,  AMI)  from  the  tiftiui''  out  of  the  '  Alabama,' and 
other  similar  vessels  in  Her  ^Majesty's  [(orts,  AND  from  their  ])('riuitte(l  ,^J'j' 
eiitraiieo  into  other  ])orts." 

r».  That  t\w  wor&A '■'■Aldlmma  claims^'  {ov  any  equivalent  iorm  of  ex 
pression)  wore  never  made  use  of,  nor  was  their  use  ever]»roposed  to  Ik 
varied  or  extended  so  as  to  (,'ompreheiid  this  new  class  of  (suyjj,este(l 
public  claims. 

(J.  That  the  idea  of  a  onesided  reference  of  such  supj)osed  ])ubli( 
claims  of  the  (Tovermnent  of  the  Huited  States  oidy  was  never  for  fi 
moment  advaiuied  or  entertained;  on  the  contrary,  the  essential  comli 
tion  of  j\h'.  -lohnsoii's  jiroposal  w.'is  that  it  shouhl  also  be  open  to  IftT 
jMaj'esty  to  advance  any  i)ubli(!  claims  whatever  which  they  miuht  con  ^|^i*^';V  '' 
ceive  themselves  to  hav(>  ajiainst  tlie  Government  of  the  United  States 
— a  claim  for  injury  to  IJritish  interests,  by  the  assertion  and  exercisi 
of  belliiicrent  ri<>hts  a.uainst  P>ritish  commerce,  beiiis  expressly  antici 
pated,  as  f>  ]»robable  or  jiossible  set-off  to  any  claim  on  the  i)art  of  tlit 
United  States,  founded  upon  the  denial  of  a  belligerent  status,  at  any 
given  period,  t(*  the  C'onfederates. 

7.  Tiiat,  althoujili  ottered  under  these  conditions,  the  jiroposal  w;i> 
simi)ly,  and  without  a  discussion,  declined  by  Her  Majesty's  (loverii 
ment. 

Jt  was  in  Mr.  Sumner's  sjieech,  at  the  meetinj;'  of  the  United  State> 
Senate,  which  refused  to  ratify  the  Convention  oi'  the  14tli  danuan, 
18(»1>,  that  the  tirst  con(;eption  of  imblic  claims,  of  the  nature  and  mas 
iiitude  of  those  now  advanced  in  the  "Case"  of  the  United  States,  wa- 
inade  known  to  the  world.  His  arjiinnent  on  this  head  was  thus  sumnic' 
up  i)y  .Mr.  Thornton,  (l!Hli  April,  l,S()!t,  to  Lord  C'larendon  :)  "Yeir 
Lordship  will  perceive  that  the  sum  of  Mr.  Sumner's  assertions  is,  tlur 
En,i>lan(l  insulted  the  United  States  by  the  jirematiue,  unfriendly,  am: 
unnecessary  Proclamation  oi"  the  (^ueen,  enjoining'  neutrality  on  Iloi 
Majesty's  subjects ;  that  she  owes  them  an  apology  for  this  step;  that 
she  is  rcspoiisihie  for  the  propcrf;/  destrafjed  hi/  Ihc  '•Alahamn''  and  otlin 
Confederate  criiizers,  and  even  for  the  remote  damatje  to  Ameriean  shippim 
interests,  inelu'linij  the  inerettse  of  the  rate  of  insnranee :  that  the  Vonjhirr- 
ates  were  so  mneh  assisted  hi/  beinr/  able  to  (jet  arms  and  ammunition  froin 
Enf/laud,  and  so  much  eneonratjed  by  the  i^uccn^s  Proclamation,  that  tk 


among  othe 
or  (at  least 
lisi)utuble. 
vith  tiie  Sc 
iry,  18()D,  t 
erriul  from 
)rovisious  c 
■ion  for  tin 
vhich  he  coi 
'The  rresi( 
>f  the  indei; 
ridual  citizei 
Hty  by  1  ebel 
le  noic  prepa 
sh  Oovcrnme 
flieted  on  the 
'ive  effeet  of 
lion  of  beliiin 
upply  of  shi^ 
'Vise,  in  what 


ITRATION. 


COURKSrONDKN'CE    RE.Sl'KCTIiVG    GENEVA    AKBITUATION. 


;]7 


[•(()'  Idsfril  initvli  loni/or  than  if  ivindd  otkcninsc  hare  tlinu\  and  tli'd    wo 
\inilif  thirrfoi'e  to  jxii/  InKKilnnt'H  adtlitionni  vxofmr.H  iiuposnl  niimi  the  Inii- 

it  SI'drs  l)ji  llir  ih'ohmnnfioii  of  the  iviir."  Mr.  Siumn'i'  hiiiisi'ir  did  not 
ItlucL  to  rcpi'bsiiiit  tlii3  lattiu' i)iiili()ii  at  all  cvciils  of  lil.s  sii^yvsti'd  du- 
^Miid.  as  '•  ^lowiii;;'  out  of  tin;  acts  of  tlio  "Alabama,"  or  ol'aiiy  other 

Miticiiiar  vt'ssi'ls;  and  !\[r.  Tlioriitou's  cimiint'iit  upon  tlin  wli  >li',  ol"  it 
lliows  very  (jlearly  iIjb  iiiiiossiliility  of  asiMibiui;'  to  Ihe  ants  of  any  par- 
jiciilar  vcsst'ls  allt;j;vil  to  liavo  hoan  fitted  out  froai  Drltlsli  ports,  eitiier 
|Le  whole  or  any  asc/iu'taiiiable  part  of  the  ^^'cncral  losses  siistaiaisd  by 

LiiU!ri(!au  coiiiiueree  darliiji"  the  war,  or  ev. 'i  distiiin'uishiii'j;  biMwceii 
lueli  losses  of  that  kind  as  were  real  and  iiiose  which  were  apparent 
>iily. 

So  far  no  step  was  taken  by  the  United  States  (rovernnient  to  adopt 
fir.  Saauier's  views  or  to  advaiii;e  claims  cornisixjudin^'  to  tluMu.     On 
e  10th  of  .Inne,   180!),  Mr.  JMotley  renewed   to  Lord   Clarendon   the 
claration  of  the  wish  of  his  (iovernment  "  that  existin"' differences 


stence  was  so  sn<,'- 
)  "out  of  the  acts 
I  "  hecause  of  tlit 
1  of  the  Confedc 
i'  'Alabama,'  am! 
I  their  ]>ernnttcil 

alent  form  of  ex 
^•«'r))roposed  to  Ik 
iss  of  (su<^j>'est('(l 

supposed  ])ubli( 
•  was  never  for ; 
e  essential  eoiali 
be  open  to  Mci 
tliev  nn<>ht  con- 
he  Uniteil  Stato 
ion  and  exercist 
;•  expressly  antici 
n  the  i)avt  of  tin 
nt  status,  at  any 

the  i)i'oi)osal  Ava^ 
lajesty's  (Jloverii 

le  United  Statt» 
u'  14th  ,Ianuaiy, 
nature  and  mai; 
nited  States,  wii- 
was  thus  snnuiic 
rendon  :)  "Yon: 
issertions  is,  tliii' 
»,  unfriendly,  aiui| 
eutrality  on  Jloit 
this  step ;  tliii! 
ih(()na '  (Old  otlti'i 
\  mri'icau  fihippini 
that  the  Cotifcdcr 
(iinmynithn  frm 
hanation,  that  tk 


)et\veen  the  two  countries  should  be  honourably  settled,  and   that  the 
fidernutioual    relations   should   be  platted  on   a  lirm  and   satisiactory 
asis,"  whicth  Lord  ('larendon  of  course  recii)ro(!ateil.    Then,  after  advert- 
\\\<^  to  other  subjects,  he  said  that  "  the  Claims  Conveidion  had  been 
■)ublished  prematurely,  owinj;-  to  some  acci«teut  whi<  !i  he  could  not  ex- 
)lain;  and  that  conse(juently,  long  before  it  came  under  the  notice  of 
lie  Senate,  it  had  been  uufavoural)ly  nnieived  by  all  classes  aiul  parties 
n  the    United  States.     The  time  at  whidi  it  was  signed  was  thoujiht 
nost  inopportune,  as  the  late  President  and  his  (iovernment  were  vir- 
tually out  of  otlice,  and  their  successors  coidd  not  be  comnutted  on  this 
iiave  (luestion.     The  Convention  was  furiher  objected  to  ttceauHc  it  cin- 
iraccd  only  the  claims  of  individuals,  and  had  no  rc/crcnev  to  those  of  the 
ICO  Gocerninents  on  each  other;''''  and,  "lastly,  that  it  settled  no  (piestioii 
uid  laid  down  no  jr/inciijle.    These  were  the  chief  reasons  which  had  led 
o  its  rejection  by  t.ic  Senate;"  and  yU:  ^Motley  added  "that  althou<;h 
;hey  had  not  been  iii  once  and  explicitly  stated,  no  discourtesy  to  ller 
lajesty's  Government  was  thereby  inteiuletl.'' 
On  the  2.jth  of  September,  18GD,  Mr.  Fish  revived  the  whole  subject 
f  the  controversies  between  the  two  Governuu  nts  within   its  widest 
ange  in  a  lony  ami  elaborate  despatch  to  Mr.  Motley,  in  which  he  referred 
amonj>' other  thinj;s)  to  the  responsibility  of  the  British  Government 
or  (at  least)   '■^  all  the  depredations  committed  hi/  the 'Alabama'''^  as  iu- 
isputable.     lie  stated,  towards  the  end,  the  President's  concurrence 
lith   the  Senate  in  disapproving  the  Convention  of  the  14th  Janu- 
ry,   1800,   thinkiuy   (in   addition    to   j;eneral   reasons  left    to   be   in- 
erriHl    from    the    general    arj^uments   of    the    despatch)    that    "  the 
)rovisions    of    the  Convention   were    inade([uate  to   provide  repara- 
ion    for  the  United   States    in   the    manner  and  to   the  degree  to 
-hich  he  considers  the  United  States  entitled  to  redress,''     lie  added: 
'  Tlie  President  is   not  yet  prepared  to   pronounce  on  the   question 
f  the  indemnities  which   he  thinks   due   by  Great  Britain  to   iudi- 
ridual  citizens  of  the  Uiuted  States  for  the  destruction  of  their  i>rop- 
rty  by  lebel  cruizers  litted  out  in  the  i)orts  of  Great  Britain.     Nor  is 
e  noic  prepared  to  speak  of  the  reparation  ichich  he  thinlcs  duo  by  the  Brit- 
ish Government  for  the  lart/er  account  of  the  vast  national  injuries  it  has  in- 
licted  on  the  United  /stales.     Xor  does  he  attempt  now  to  measure  the  rela- 
tive oXfeet  of  the  various  causes  of  injury ;  as,  whether  by  untimely  recogni- 
tion of  belliyereney  ;  by  sujj'eriny  the  fittiny-out  of  rebel  cruizcrs  ;  or  by  the 
)^upply  of  ships,  arms,  and  munitions  of  war  to  the  Confederates  ;  or  other- 
fvise,  in  whatsoever  manner.     *     *      *     All  these  are  subjects  of  futuie 


38 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


001 


1 


T 


>■   J 


r  * 


considoration,  wliicb,  when  the  time  for  action  shall  come,  the  President 
will  consider,  with  sincere  and  earnest  desire  that  all  differences  be- 
tween the  two  nations  may  be  adjnsted  amicably  and  compatibly  with 
the  honour  of  each,  and  to  the  future  i)romotion  of  concord  between 
them  ;  to  which  end  he  will  spare  no  efforts  within  the  range  of  his  su- 
preme duty  to  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  United  States.  *  *  * 
At  the  present  stage  of  the  controversy,  the  sole  object  of  the  President 
is  to  state  the  position  and  maintain  tlie  .attitude  of  the  United  States 
in  the  varinus  relations  and  aspects  of  this  grave  controversy  with 
Great  Britain.  It  is  the  object  of  this  paper  (which  you  are  at  liberty 
to  read  to  Lord  Clarendon)  to  state  cdml^v  and  dispassionately,  with  a 
more  unmeasured  freedom  than  might  be  used  in  one  addressed  directly 
to  the  (Queen's  Government,  what  this  Government  seriously  considers 
the  injuries  it  has  suffered.  It  is  not  irritten  in  the  nature  of  a  claim, 
for  the  Cnited  States  noiv  make  no  demand  affainst  Her  Majestifs  Government 
on  aecoHut  of  the  injuries  they  feel  they  hare  sustained.^^ 

Lor<l  Clarendon,  understanding  this  desi)atch  as  intended  to  revive, 
and  to  prepare  tlie  way  for  a  new  settlement  of,  the  claims  previously 
advanced,  spoke  of  it  in  his  answering  despatch  to  ]Mr.  Thornton  (No 
vember  0,  180!>)  as  "a  despatch  from  3Ir.  Fish  on  the  ^Ahthnmn^  claims:' 
That  it  was  not  intended  to  extend,  and  that  it  had  not  the  effect  of  ex- 
tending, the  signitication  of  that  term,  as  used  in  the  previous  corre- 
spondence, is  plain,  (1)  from  the  fact  that  Mr.  Fish  expressly  disclaimed 
for  his  despat(!h  the  otHce  or  effect  of  makimj  any  new  claim  or  demand; 
(2)  that  it  reserved  ibr  future  consideration  the  question  of  reparation 
for  the  (sni)posed)  "national  injuries"  intlicted  by  the  British   Govern- 
ment on  tlie  United  States;  and  (.'{)  that  it  "  declined  to  measure  the 
relative  effect  of  the  various  (alleged)  causes  of  injury;"  the  "suffering 
th    litting-out  of  rebel  cruizers"  being  only  one  of  tiiree  causes  enu- 
uu'rated.    Lord  Clarendon  simply  contentecl  himself  witii  rejdying  that 
"Jler  ^Majesty's  (iovernment  could  not  make  any  new  propositiim,  or 
run  the  risk  of  another  unsuccessful  negotiation,  until   tiu'y  had  infer- 
nnition  more  clear  than  that  which  was  containeil  in  Mr.  Fish's  desi)at(!li 
respecting  the  basis  upon  which  the  Government  of  tlie  United  States 
would  be  <lisi)osed  to  negotiate."    But,  in  a  paper  of  observations  upon 
the  arguments  in    this   despatch,  which    he   at    the    same    time  (<ith 
November,   18()i>)  transmitted  to  3lr.  Thornton,  to  be  communicated 
to  Mr.  Fish,    he    remarked,  under    the    head    of  ^^ Indirect    injury   to 
American  commerce,''^   ^'■This    alleyation    of  national,    indirect,    or    con- 
structire  claims  iras  first  In-out/ht  forn-ard  oljiciatly  by  ^fr.  Rercrdy'fohnson. 
in   his   attempt  to  rencn-  negotiations  on  the  Chinese  Conrcntion  in  March 
last.     Mr.  Thornton  has  shown  the  dihiculty  there  would  be  in  comi)ut- 
ing  the  amount  of  the  claim, even  if  it  were  acknowledged,  in  a  (lesi)at('li 
in    which   lu^   mentions  the  continual   decrease  of  American  tonnage. 
This   is  partly,  no  doubt,  to  be  ascribed  to  the  disturbance  of  comnuT- 
cial    relations   consequent  on   a  long  war,  ]>artly  to  the  tact  that  many 
vessels  were  nominally  transferred  to  IJritish  owners  during  the  war  to 
escape  cai>ture.    *        *        *        *     Is  not,  iiowever,  a  good  deal  of  it 
to  !»'  attriltnted  to  the  high  American  taritf,  which  makes  the  construc- 
tion of  vessels  in  American  ])orts  more  exi)ensive  than  ship-building  in 
England,  and  has  thereby  thrown  so  large  a  proportion  of  tiie  carryins; 
trade   into   I'^ngiish  hands.'     There  must  be  sonu' such  cause  for  it,  or 
otlu'rwise  American  shijiping   would  have  recovered  its  position  since 
the  war.  instead  of  continuing  to  fall  off."     #         #         *         #         #     And 
with    regard  to  "  the  claims  for  ntst  national  injuries,^''  he  noticed   tlnit 
]'rofessor  W(dsey,  the  eminent  American  jurist,  had  repudiated  them 
as  untenable,  cS:c. 


This  chi 
>ov(Miune 
legotiatioi 
l)'that,  d( 
>rnment,  t 
nent  of  a  .1 
other  (pie> 
Her  Majest 
formulated 
Majesty's 
of  individn 
similar  ve? 
Mr.  Fish's 
intimated 
might  be 
tliough  th 
that  the  gr 
lublic   clai 
hama   and 
lacts;  and 
)cen  used, 
(•iil)e   the 
esses  by  tl 
and  had 
public  or 
States. 

It  was  nil 
ary,  1S71,  n 
the  remova 
United  Stat 
committed  Ih 
known  as  th 
of  cordial  a 
E.  Tlun-nto 
Earl  (Jranv 
great  satisl 
bam  a''  elaih 
Connnissioi 
(|uestions  r 
discussed,  ] 
zens  of  the  i 
civil  war  ii 
sion."  I\Ir. 
1871,  alter 
the  satistiii 
gencc  that 
ty's  (Joven 
ment  as  to 
and  that  " 
American  e 
war  ill  tliis 
sanu'  High 
Mr.  Fish 
tseveial  Ibr 
[/>fljw<f'  clain 
|o/«Jw,s',"  'W 


ITRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


39 


me,  the  President 
11  (lifferenees  be- 
compatibly  with 
concord  between 
!  range  of  his  sii- 
>tates.  *  *  * 
t.  of  the  President 
le  United  States 
contx'oversy  with 
on  are  at  liberty 
sionately,  with  a 
ddressed  directly 
'liously  considers 
at  lire  of  a  claim, 
je.sty\s  Government 

ended  to  revive. 

'lalnis  previously 

r.  Thornton  (No- 

Alabama''  chiim>s:' 

t  the  effect  of  ex- 

?  previous  corre- 

ressly  disclaimed 

chuiiiov  demand; 

on  of  reparation 

British  (Jovern- 

I  to  measure  the 

■;"  the  "suffering 

hree  causes  enii- 

ith  re])lyin<>-  that 

V  proijosition,  or 

they  had  infor- 

Fish's  desi)at('h 

United  States 

>servations  upon 

same    time  ((ith 

cominunicated 

'lirect    injury   1o 

ntlireet,    or    con- 

h'ei'erdi/'fohnsint. 

rention  in  jMarck 

Id  be  in  comput- 

1,  in  a  despatch 

n('ii(!an  tonnage. 

nice  of  commer- 

e  lact  that  many 

uringthe  war  to 

good  deal  of  it 

ces  the  construc- 

ship-buildingin 

of  the  carrying 

I  cause  for  it,  or 

ts  position  since 

*         *     And 

le  noticed   that 

epudiated  them 


P 


communications  between  the  two 
(ioveniments,  anterior  to  those  whi(!h  had  for  their  immediate  result  the 
negotiation  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington.  They  show  CDiiclusively  : 
1)  that,  down  to  the  2<)th  of  January,  1.S71,  (when  Her  INFaJesty's  (Jov- 
■rnment,  tlirough  Sir  E.  Thornton,  proposed  to  Mr.  Fish  the  ai)point- 
inentof  a  Joint  High  Commission  to  settle  the  Fishery  (Question,  and  all 
other  (piestions  affecting  "the  relations  of  the  United  Stales  toward 
Her  Majesty's  possessions  in  Xortli  America,'')  no  avtual  claim  had  been 
forninlated  or  notified  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  against  Her 
Majesty's  (rovernment,  except  for  the  capture  or  destruction  of  property 
of  individual  citizens  of  the  United  States  by  the  "Alabama,"  and  other 
similar  vessels;  (2)  that  the  (xovernment  of  the  United  States  had,  in 
Mr.  Fish's  despatch  of  the  25th  of  September,  ISfll),  for  the  lirst  time 
intimated  to  the  (lovernment  of  this  country  that  they  considered  there 
might  be  grounds  for  some  claims  of  a  larger  and  uunv  i>nblie  nature, 
though  tliey  puiposely  abstained  at  that  time  from  n;aking  them  ;  (3) 
tliat  the  gi'ounds  indicated,  as  those  on  which  any  such  larger  .indmore 
[public  claims  might  be  made,  were  not  limited  to  the  acts  of  the  Ala- 
bama and  other  similar  vessels,  or  to  any  mere  consecpuMice  of  tiiose 
lacts:  and  (4)  that  the  expression  "f//e 'yl/rt/>rtw«"'  c/<//h/.s' had  always 
jceii  used,  in  the  corresixmdence  between  the  two  (lovernnients,  to  de- 
cril)e  the  claims  of  American  citizens  on  account  of  their  own  <lirect 
osscs  by  the  depredations  of  the  Alabama  "and  other  similar  vessels;" 
and  had  never  been  employed  to  describe,  or  as  comi)rehending,  any 
puldic  or  national  claims  whatever  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States. 

It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  Mr.  Fish,  on  the  .'Utth  of  Janu- 
ary, IS71,  nifonned  Sir  E.  Thornton  that  the  PresidiMit  thougiit  "that 
the  lemoval  of  the  <lifferenees  which  arose  during  the  rebellion  in  the 
United  States,  and  which  has  existed  since  then,  f/roiritai  out  of  the  actii 
eommitteil  hi/  tin  sereral  resnels,  irhieli  hail  (jiren  rise  to  the  etaiiiis  i/enerieallif 
l-noirn  as  tJie  ^Athama''  claims,  would  also  be  essential  to  the  restoration 
of  cortlial  and  amicable  relations  between  the  two  (lovernnients,"  Sir 
E.  Thornton  replied  (1st  February,  ISTl)  that  he  was  authorized  by 
Earl  (iranville  to  state  that  "it  W(udd  give  Her  Majesty's  (iovernnient 
great  satisfaction  if  the  claims  commonly  J^noicn  by  the  name  of  the  '•Ala- 
Imma''  claims  were  submitted  to  the  con.sideraticui  of  the  same  High 
Commission,  by  which  Her  jNIajesty's  (iovennnent  had  proposed  that  the 
(|nestioiis  relating  to  British  ])ossessions  in  Xt)rth  America  should  be 
discussed,  ])rovi(led  that  alt  other  claims,  both  of  British  suhjects  and  citi- 
zens (f  the  t'nifed  States,  i\v\s\\\<x  mxt  ol' acts  committed  during  the  recent 
civil  war  in  this  country,  wer«'  similarly  referred  to  the  same  Commis- 
sion."' .Mr.  Fish,  in  answer  to  this  announcement,  «ni  the  M  of  I'ebruary, 
1871,  after  citing  the  exact  terms  of  Sir  10.  Thornton's  letti-r,  expressed 
the  salisl'action  with  which  the  Tresident  "had  received  the  intelli- 
gence that  ICarl  (Iranville  had  authorized  him  to  slate  that  Her  ]\Iajes- 
ty's  (loveinnuMit  had  acce])te(l  the  views  of  the  I'nited  Stares  (lovern- 
ment as  to  the  disposition  to  be  made  o\'  Ihe  so-called  '■Alabama^  claims;" 
and  that  "if  there  be  other  and  further  claims  o/" />/v7/.s7(  siibjirls  or  of 
American  citizens  growing  out  of  acts  eommittccl  during  the  recent  civil 
war  in  this  country  lie  assents  to  the  i)ropriety  of  their  reterence  to  the 
same  Jligh  ('ommission."' 

Mr.  I'ish,  therefore,  and  Sir  E.  Thornton  agreed  in  describing,  by  the 
several  tbrins  of  exi)ression,  ^''  the  claims  (icnericalty  Icnoien  as  the  '•Ala- 
name  of  the '■  AlahavuV 


ibj . 


I>!l 


ielaims,"  "■the  ^Alabama'  ctaimN,"'  and  "//a'  so-called  '•Alabama''  claims," 


Yr    >. 


40 


,'■'•'     - 

COKRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


I .  j 


|i"« 


OHO  and  tlic  sainc  snbjoct-mattt'r.  What  this  was  is  proved,  not  only 
by  the  i)r('vi()ns  nso  of  the  same  or  similar  terms,  bnt  also  by  the  tact' 
that,  if  these  words  had  been  now  intended  to  include  indefinite  ])nblic 
or  national  claims  of  the  United  States  (Tovernment  aji'ainst  (ireat  Bri- 
tain, and  not  merely  those  claims  for  diicct  losses  which  Innl  been  ])re- 
vionsly  i)reseiited  oi-  notified,  and  any  others  epindem  (jencri.s,  it  must  of  | 
necessity  have  followed  (according  to  the  snjjs'estions  which  had  been 
nnnh'  by  INFr.  Iteverdy  Johnson,  and  afterward  by  Mr.  ^Motley)  that  any 
counter  claims  which  the  (lovernnu'nt  of  (ireat  liritain  miyht  have 
thought  lit  to  advance,  on  i)ublic  or  national  fjrounds,  against  the  (irov- 
eminent  of  the  United  States,  must  have  been  in  like  manner  ])rovide(l 
for.  But  the  only  other  claiais  i)rovided  for  were  those  of  subjects  of 
Great  Britain  and  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

Ill  strict  conformity  with  this  view.  Lord  Granville,  when  enuniera-  ' 
tinji"  in  his  iiistru(;tions  to  I[er  Majesty's  Hij^h  Cominissioiu'rs  (l>th  Feb- 
ruary, 1S71)  the  i)riiicipal  subjects  to  which  their  attention  would  be 
directed,  described  these  claims  as  "the  claims  on  ac(U)unt  of  the  Ala- 
bama, Shenandoah,  and  certain  other  cruizers  of  the  so-styled  Confed- 
erate States;"'  say  ins'  "Underthis  head  a'n^  comi)rised  the  (claims  against 
Great  Britain  for  damaji'es  sustained  by  the  depiedations  of  the  Alabama, 
Shenandoah,  and  Georjiia,  the  vessels  whi(!h  were  furnished  on  account 
of  tli(>  Coiiicdeiate  States,  and  armed  outside  of  British  jurisdiction, 
and  the  I'lorida,  whitih,  thoufih  built  in  England,  was  armed  and 
e(jnipped  in  the  jxn't  of  j\[obile." 

The  same,  or  the  equivalent  words,  therefore,  as  often  as  they  are 
used  in  the  Protocols  of  I'  (Commissioners  and  in  the  Treaty  of 
AVashington  itself,  ought,  ujm.u  ordinary  principles  of  construction,  to 
be  understood  as  bearing  the  same  sense.  And  this  seems  to  be  made 
more  clear  by  the  exclusion  from  the  reference  of  any  claims  of  this 
country  <>r  ol'  the  i)eople  of  Cana<la,  on  account  of  the  proceeding  of 
the  Fenians  in  the  United  States.  There  might  ceitainly  have  been 
national  claims  of  (ireat  liritain  arising  out  of  those  proceedings,  (in 
addition  to  any  particular  losst-s  by  Canailian  subjects,)  which  could  not 
])ossibly  hav(^  been  excluded  on  any  just  or  intelligil)le  jninciple,  if  in- 
definite claims  for  public  or  national  losses  had  been  intended  to  be  left 
open  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

On  a  careful  examination  of  the  language  of  the  Protocols  and  the 
Treaty,  nothing  is  found  at  variance  with  this  conclusion,  while  very 
much  is  found  to  confirm  it. 

The  t'WJth  Protocol,  drawn  nj)  after  the  Commissioners  had  agreed 
upon  all  the  terms  of  the  Treaty,  for  the  ])uri)osi'  of  recording  (so  far 
as  they  thought  it  necessary  or  desii'able)  the  histcny  of  their  ])roceed- 
ings,  begins  by  stating  the  proceedings  at  their  first  conference,  on  the 
Stli  March,  1.S71.  On  that  occasion  the  American  Commissioners  sjioke 
(1)  of  the  feeling  of  the  United  States,  "that  they  had  sustained  a 
great  wrong,  and  that  great  injuries  and  losses  were  inflicted  ii]»on  their 
commerce  and  their  material  interests  />//  flic  course  anil  coii'liict  ol'  (Ircitt 
lir\t<iin  tUiriuii  tlic  recent  rchcl  I  ion  in  the  United  iStaten  ;"  (2)  of  '■'th'.  his- 
tori/  of  llic  Aldhanui  anil  other  crni^crs  which  had  been  fitted  out,  or 
armed,  or  e(|ui|»i>tMl,  or  which  had  received  augmentation  of  force  in 
(ireat  Ibitain  or  in  her  Colonies,  <ni<l  of  the  ojieratioiiK  of  tho.se  vessels,  as 
siioirint/  (A)  e.etensire  direct  losses  in  the  eaptiire  and  deslrnelion  of  h 
hinje  UH inker  of  vessels  irith  their  cariiocs,  and  in  the  heavij  national  c.rpend- 
iinre  in  the  pnrnnil  of  the  crniicrs ;  and  (U)  indirect  injiiri/  in  the  trans 
fer  if  a  laific  part  of  the  American  connnervial  marine  to  the  liritish  Jlaij, 
ill  the  enhanced  payments  oj  insurance,  in  the  prolonyation  of  the  war,  and 


in  the  a<f\ 
the  rel)el\ 
failure  il 
;i(.s'////  li<\ 
preambll 
the   con I 
course  <i\ 
'•Alabau 
the   natii 
"shown  I 
spoken  << 
tory"  a^. 
their  ten(\ 
The  aI 
the  loss 
senteil,'' 
"  which 
not  yet  1 
losses,  n 
which  th 
be  ascert 
the  wore 
always  b 
ernmcnt, 
eluded 
then  foll( 
no  estim: 
to  tlie  ri^ 
settlemeii 
Here  h 
for  indire 
Tiie  iiu>ai 
considere 
(pH'slion 
known  af 
losses  ha< 
ing  it  as 
event  of 
means   o 
"claims" 
Tiie  lie 
stating  t 
ty"s  (Jov 
then  i»roj 
a  sum  wl 
safisfacti 
are  here 
they  met 
cation"' 
cable  set 
bv  iiny  1 
'in  the 
ings  res 
to  the  th 
"right  o 
^Alabam 


IBITKATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


41 


s  proved,  jiot  only 
nfc  also  by  the  iiic't 
le  indcliiiik'  jjiiblie 

sifiiiinstCireiit  liii 
liicli  liad  bocn  pre- 

(j(')ieri.s,  it  must  of 
IS  which  had  been 
.  Motley)  tliat  any 
ritaiii  jnif-ht  have 
1,  against  the  (iov- 
»  manner  jjrovided 
ose  of  subjects  of 

e,  when  eimniera- 
ssioiK'rs  (!)th  Feb- 
tention  would  be  | 
ieonnt  of  the  Ala- 
so-styled  Confed- 
the claims  a,uaiiist 
IS  of  the  Alabama, 
lished  on  af'count 
itish  Jurisdiction, 
was  armed   and 

[iften  as  they  are 
in   the  Trenty  of 
f  oonstructiou,  to 
seems  to  be  )Ma<le 
ny  claims  ol'  this 
he  proce(Miiii<i'  of 
tainly  have  l)eeii   M 
I  proceedin.iis,  (in 
which  c(»uld  not 
jtiinciple,  if  in- 
tended to  be  left 


I'otoeols  and  the 
<ion,  whih^  very 

^•s  had  a j; reed 

'eordin;^'  (so  far 

'  their  ])roc.eed- 

nleience,  on  the 

lissioners  sjioke 

ad  sustained  a 

eted  upon  their 

•ontltift  ol'  (ii'cnt 

(L')  of  ^hh'  his- 

litted  (»ut,  or 

ion  of  for(;e  in 

Iho.v  rrsscis,  as 

IcslnirHnii  of  (( 

\(itin)i((l  (wpi'ud- 

I'!/  ill  111!'  iniii.s 

III'  llri/iy/i  Jta;/, 

;/■  tlic  inir^  <iuit 


;i 


in  the<i(hlitio)i  of  a  lat'fic  sum  to  the  cost  of  the  lonr  and  the  mipprcsHioii  of 
the  rehcllioii ;  and  as  also  showing  (O)  that  Great  Britain,  by  reason  of 
failure  in  the  ju-oper  obsorvaiKie  of  her  <luties  as  a  neutral,  had  become 
jmtUi  liable  for  the  acts  of  those  cniizcrs  and  their  tenders."'  So  far  all  is 
preamble,  and  as  yet  there  is  no  mention  of  claims.  General  injury  to 
the  commerce  and  material  inteiests  of  the  United  States,  '•  bij  the 
eouriic  and  conduct  of  Great  Britain;''''  direct  losses  by  the  captures  of  the 
•Ahibama"  and  similar  cruizers,  and  also  (an  item  now  first  added)  by 
the  natioiutl  ejcpenditure  in  their  pursuit ;  and  indirect  ])ublic.  injury, 
"shown  by  the  history  of  those  vessels  and  their  ojjerations,"  are  all 
spoken  of ;  but  the  " ;(Vf/>//<Y.y,"  expressly  inferred  from  the  same  "his- 
tory" against  Great  Britain,  is  Vim'iiiid  to '■'•  the  acts  of  those  vessels  and 
their  tenders." 

Tile  Anu'rican  Commissioners  then  ])roceed  to  si>eak  of  ^'thc  claims  for 
the  loss  and  destruction  of  private  property  irhich  had  thus  far  been  pre- 
sented" as  anu)uiiting  to  about  l-f,()00,()0()  dollars,  without  interest, 
"  which  amount  was  liable  to  be  greatly  increased  by  claims  which  had 
not  yet  been  presented;"  and,  with  resjjcct  to  the  new  head  of  direct 
losses,  now  for  the  first  time  mentioned,  they  say  that  "  the  cost  to 
which  the  Government  had  ))een  ])ut  in  i)ursuit  of  cruizers  could  easily 
be  ascertained  by  certificates  of  Government  accounting  oflicers."  Here 
the  word  "c/«//».s"  is  used  with  resjjcct  to  dire(;t  losses  only,  as  it  had 
always  been  used  before,  but  with  notice  that  direct  losses  of  the  (iov- 
ernment,  in  ]»ursuit  of  tiie  vessels  referred  to,  are  now  nu-ant  to  be  in- 
cluded in  that  category,  as  vrell  as  the  losses  of  private  citizens.  And 
then  follow  the  words:  "That,  in  the  hope  of  an  amicable  settlement, 
no  estimate*  was  niade  of  the  indire(!t  losses,  without  prejudice,  however, 
to  tiie  rigid  of  indeuuiiiicatiou  on  their  account,  in  the  event  of  no  sucli 
settU'ment  being  made." 

Here  is  a  clear  waivta*  of  the  (assumed)  "right  of  indemniiicatiou" 
for  indirect  losses  in  the  event  of  "an  amicable  settlement"  oeing  made. 
Tlie  iiu'aning  of  the  words  "an  amicable  settlen  ent"  has  been  alrea<ly 
considered  in  the  First  Part  of  this  ]\Ienu)randum.  At  present  the 
(pu'stion  is  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  words  "the  claims  geneiically 
known  as  the  'Alabama'  claims.'''  If  no  actual  claim  for  these  indirect 
losses  had  been  previously  made,  it  clearly  was  not  made  now  by  treat- 
ing it  as  a  reserved  "right"  which  would  or  might  be  insisted  on  in  the 
event  of  no  amicable  settlenu'iit  being  arrived  at.  Still  less  could  it,  by 
means  (»f  any  siudi  reservation,  be  brought  within  tlie  category  of 
"claims"  already  "geiu'rically  known  as  the  "Alabanm'  claims." 

Tlu'  next  step  in  tlie  proceedings  corroborates  this  view.  For,  after 
stating  their  desire  for  au  exi)ression  of  regret  on  the  i)art  of  ]  ler  ^lajes- 
ty's  (io\ernment,  which  they  t»btained,  the  American  Commissioners 
then  propttsed  "that  the  iloint  High  Commissioners  should  agree  upou 
a  sum  wliich  should  be  |)aid  by  (ireat  Britain  to  the  Utiited  St;»tes,  in 
saiisfaction  of  all  the  claims,  and  the  interest  thereon."  .1//  the  claims 
are  here  si>okeu  of;  but  it  can  hardly  be  possible  that,  in  this  pioposal, 
they  nu'ant  to  include  indiri'ct  h)sses;  because  "the  light  to  indemnifi- 
cation" on  that  account  was  only  tt>  hv  asserted  in  the  ev«'iit  of  no  ami- 
cable settlement  being  made;  nor  were  these  indelinite  claims  such  as, 
by  any  possibility,  could  be  regarded  as  bearing  interest. 

In  the  later  jiassages  of  this  Tiotocol,  which  relate  to  the  i)roceed- 
ings  resulting  in  the  reference  to  Arldtration,  and  in  the  agreenu'iit  as 
to  the  three  "  Hules"  no  trace?  occurs  of  any  re;-iirrence  to  the  reserved 
"right  of  indemnilicaficai,"  or  to  the  subject  of  indirect  losses.  "  T/te 
^Alabama'  Claims'^  alone  are  spoken  of. 


'!''.iy.'ffl 


l-ii. 


Ua 


ilE: 


rpv 


42 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


Ill  tlio,  Tst  Article  of  tlio  Treaty  itself,  the  words  '■^  genericaUtj  known," 
&c.,  so  far  as  they  differ  from  other  forms  of  expression  previonsly  used 
in  respect  of  tiie  same  subject,  differ  only  by  defining  that  subject  with 
gicnter  accuracy,  so  as  more  pointedly  to  exclude  indirect  losses. 

"Cenerically"  is  an  adverb  of  classification,  with  reference  to  the  na- 
ture of  the  subject-matter  itself.  Chiims  for  direct  losses,  by  the  acts 
of  a  particular  class  of  vessels,  or  by  a  definite  expenditure  for  tlie 
prevention  of  these  acts,  are,  in  their  nature,  of  the  same  cate;i>ory  or 
genus;  and  it  is  the  very  fact  ot  their  beinj?  capable  of  beinjj  directly 
connected  with  the  acts  of  those  vessels,  as  an  effect  with  its  (!ause, 
which  makes  them  so.  Indirect  public  losses,  to  Avhich  many  con(Hirrent 
causes  may  have  contributed  (as.  with  respect  to  those  now  in  question, 
is  clearly  demonstrated  by  Mr.  Sumner's  speech,  and  Mr.  Thornton's 
observations  upon  it,  and  also  by  Lord  Clarendon's  memorandum  of  tlie 
Oth  November,  18(»'.),)  are  different  in  their  kind,  and  open  up  muclx 
wider,  and  wholly  difi'erent,  fields  of  inquiry. 

The  Vllth  and  Xth  Articles  of  the  Treaty  appear  also  to  be  irreconcil- 
able with  any  other  view  of  the  "Claims"  referred.  The  Arbitrators 
.are  to  "first  determine  as  to  each  vessel  separately,  whether  Great  Britain 
has,  by  any  act  or  omission,  iailiHl  to  fulfil  any  of  the  duties,"  &c.;  and 
"  shall  certify  the  fact,  as  to  each  of  the  said  vessels. "  This  incpiiry  is 
addressed,  and  is  limited,  to  certain  imputed  "acts  or  omissions"  of 
this  (iountry,  not  as  to  any  other  matters,  but  as  to  each,  separately,  of 
certain  vessels.  The  Arbitrators,  if  they  should  find  "  that  Great  Jiritaiu 
has  failed  to  fulfil  any  duty  or  dntiei^  as  aforesaid, "  have  y  ivev  to  ^Um-ard 
a  sum  ill  yross  to  be  paid  by  Great  Britain  to  the  United  States/or  all  the 
claims  referred.''^  But  the  power  of  awar<liii{>'  a  siuu  in  }»ioss  cannot  en 
large  or  alter  the  category  of  the  claims  referred,  or  the  scope  of  the 
Inquiry;  the  foundation  of  su(!u  an  award  must  be  some  |)articular  fail- 
ure of  «lnty,  considered  by  the  xVrbitrators  to  have  been  established 
against  Great  Britain,  by  some  acts  or  omissions  as  to  some  particular 
vessels  or  vessel;  and  the  sum  awarded  can  oidy  be  in  res[)ect  of  dam- 
ages resnltinj^  from  such  failure  of  duty,  as  to  such  ])articular  vessels 
or  vessel.  If  the  Arbitrators  shoidd  "  find  that  (Jreat  Britain  has  failed 
to  fulfill  any  duty  or  duties  as  aforesa id,  ^^  hut  do  iu)t  award  a  sum  in 
gross,  a  Board  of  Assessors  is  then  "to  ascertain  and  <letermine  irhat 
claims  are  valid  and  what  amount  or  amounts  shall  be  ])aid  by  Great 
Britain  to  the  United  States,  on  account  of  the  liahilit;/  arising  from  such 
failure  as  to  each  vessel,  according  to  the  extent  of  such  liability  as 
decided  by  the  Arbitrators."  It  seems  impossible  that  power  can  have 
been  given  to  the  Arbitrators  to  award  a  sum  in  gross  for  claims  not 
severable  as  to  each  vessel,  and  whi(!h,  therefore,  the  Assessors,  when 
dealing  with  the  case  of  each  vessel  in  detail,  could  not  entertain  or 
allow. 

II.  The  second  (piestion,  viz,  what  vessels  are  described  by  the  words 
"  the  sevend  vessels  which  have  }.:iven  rise  to  theidaimsgeiu'rically  known 
as  the  'Alabama  claims,'"  admits  of  being  more  concisely  treated. 

Until  ^Ir.  Seward's  desj)atch  to  Lord  Stanley,  of  the  L'Ttli  August, 
ISOll,  the  "Alal)ama,"  "Fhu'ida,"  "(ieorgia,"  and  "Shenandoah"' were 
the  only  ])articiilar  vessels  in  respect  of  wliose  acts  any  claims  had  been 
made.  With  respect  to  more  general  complaints  of  the  same  character. 
Mr.  Adams,  in  his  letter  to  Lord  Kassell  of  the  7tli  Ai)ril,  ISd.'J,  referred 
only  to  vessels  '^'^  supplied  from  the  ports  tf  the  United  Kinydom,""  addinir. 
"So  far  as  I  am  aware,  not  a  single  vessel  has  been  engaged  in  thesi' 
depredations  excepting  such  as  have  been  so  furnished.  Unless,  indeed, 
I  might  except  one  or  two  passenger  steamers  belonging  to  luirsons  in 


C( 

ew  Yor 
:iiining  e 

^ecapituli 
only  "  ///( 
which  a  1 
aciion  of 
m  it  ted  b\ 
|ind  '■'•the 
t^eamen,  ai 
eers,  a  pu. 

Mr.  Se\ 
ftl ready  s( 
eoiniiiitte 
(Joiih,'  an( 
and  Hticd 
tt(jeney  <f 
and  fnrnii 
ports  of 
the  globe 

As  the' 
or  fitted-(J 
the  ageiic 
a  casual 
(through  1 
of  which 
patch,  wa 
respect  of 
"  Shenan( 
already  st 
correct,"  t 
talities  in 
feold  to  Bi 
pool. 

As  this 
lion  was  i 
armed,  e(i 
been  allov 
British  w 
could  be 
Words  *'  tl 
as  the  Ali 
chara<'ter. 
ter"'  in  tl 
Seward, 
can  Govei 
fnc  vessc 
"  Chickai 
;iiot  allege 
h\  any  i)a 
AppeM<li.\ 
to  be  niail 
ton"  and 

It  may 
«tlu^  State 
•3css   than 


BITRATION. 

mericallj,  known," 
n  previously  used 

tliat  subject  with 
irect  losses, 
ference  to  the  na- 
osses,  l)y  the  acts 
pendituie  for  the 

same  catej^ory  or 

of  beinji;  directly 
:!t  with  its  (;ause, 

many  concnirrent 
13  now  in  question, 
rl  Mr.  Tliorn ton's 
morandum  of  the 
id  open  \\\)  niucLi 

^o  to  be  irreconcil- 

Tlie  Arbitrators 

;her  Great  liritain 

duties,"  &c.;  and 

This  incpiiry  is 

or  omissions"  of 

each,  separate]!/,  of 

hat  Great  Jiritaiii 

)f   ft'er  to  "rt/<v(>Y/ 

I  States /■«)>•«//  the 

I  j>Toss  cannot  en 
the  scope  of  tlie 
ne  particular  fail- 
been  established 

0  some  particular 

II  respect  of  dam- 
particular  vessels 
iiritain  has  I'ailed 

award  a  sum  in 
d  determine  irliat 
)e  ])aid  by  Gi'eat 
arhing  from  such 

such  liability  as 
t  ])ower  can  liavo 
ss  for  claims  not 

Assessors,  when 

not  entertain  or 

bed  by  the  words 

>enerically  known 

ly  treated. 

he  27th  Auynst, 

iienandoah ''  were 

■  (daims  had  bciMi 

e  same  (dniracltr. 

ril,  1.S(I.'5,  refeiTt'd 

7/i//f/ow,"  addiiiLT. 

enjia^'cd  in  these 

.    llidess,  indeed, 

ing  to  persons  in 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


43 


ew  York,  forcibly  taken  possession  of  whilst  at  Charleston  in  the  he- 
ginniny  of  the  war,  feebly  aruied,  antl  very  quickly  rendered  useless  for 
any  :ij;j>ressive  pnri)ose."  In  his  letter  of  the  L'Oth  May,  18(55,  when 
recapitulating  his  former  complaints,  ho  mentioned  under  this  head, 
oidy  "//«;  issue  from  British  ports  of  a  number  of  British  vessels,"  by 
vhi(di  a  large  amount  of  American  property  had  been  destroyed  ;  ^^the 
action  of  these  British  built,  manwil,  and  armed  vessels ;  the  ravages  com- 
Biitted  l)y  armed  steamers,  Jitted  out  from  the  ports  of  Great  Britain  ;" 
J^nd  '■'■the  issue  of  all  the  depredati  nr/  vessels  from  British  ports  with  British 
:lll/Eamen.  and  witlt,  in  all  respects  hut  the  presence  of  a  few  men  acting  as  offi- 
cers, a  pureli/  British  character.'''' 

Mr.  Reward,  in  his  despatcdi  of  the  27th  August,  ISGO,  (as  has  been 
ftlrcady  seen,)  spoke  of  "  depredations  upon  our  commercial  marine, 


and  furnished,  as  occasion  required,  during  their  devastating  career,  in 
ports  of  the  realm,  or  in  ports  of  British  Colonies  in  uearlv  sdl  i)arts  of 
the  globe." 

As  the  "  Sumter"  was  (notoriously)  not  built,  manned,  armed,  equipped, 
or  fittedout  in  any  British  port,  or  despatched  therefrom  by  or  through 
the  agency  of  any  British  subjects,  Lord  Staidey  thought  that  this  was 
a  casual  and  unintentional  error,  and  i)ointed  it  out  to  Mr.  Seward 
(through  Sir  F.  Bruce)  as  su(di ;  especially  as  the  "Georgia,"  in  icspect 
of  whiidi  vessel  particular  claims  were  scheduled  to  3[r.  Seward's  des- 
patch, was  Tiot  name<l  therein  ;  while  no  such  claims  were  scheduled  in 
;^espcct  of  the  "  Sumter"  or  of  any  other  ships,  excei)t  the  "  Alabama," 
I*'  Shenandoah,"  "  Georgia,"  and  "  Fhnida."  Mr.  Seward,  as  has  been 
■already  seen,  justilied  himself  (12th  Janimry,  1807)  as  "  substantially 
correct,"  on  the  ground  that  the  "Sumter"  had  received  certain  hospi- 
talities in  the  British  ports  of  Trinidad  and  Gibraltar,  and  had  been 
feold  to  British  subjects  at  Gibraltar  and  afterwards  received  at  Liver- 
;J)ool. 

As  this  was  the  first  occasion,  so  it  was  also  the  last,  on  which  men- 
tion was  nnide  of  any  ship  or  ships,  not  alleged  to  have  been  fitted-out, 
arnu'd,  e(piipped,  or  manned  in  any  liritish  port,  but  which  had  mer^dy 
been  allowed  to  receive  limited  sui)plies  of  coal  or  other  necessaries  in 
British  waters,  as  coming  within  the  category  of  vessels  whose  acts 
could  be  made  the  foundation  of  (daims  against  Great  Hritain,  The 
w  (U(ls  "  the  vessels  which  have  given  rise  to  the  (daims  generically  known 
as  the  Alabama  Claims"  cannot  possibly  be  extended  to  vessels  of  this 
charaidcr,  unless  it  be  on  the  ground  of  this  one  mention  of  the  "  Sum- 
ter "  in  tlie  context  which  has  been  cited  in  these  two  letters  of  VLw 
Beward.  In  the  "Case,"  however,  presented  on  the  i)arf  ot  the  Ameri- 
can (iovernment  under  the  Tieatv,  danmges  are  (daimed  in  resj)ect  of 
five  vessels  ("SumtiM-,"  "  Nashvill(>,"  "'Retribution,"  "Tallahassee," 
"  Chi(d<amauga  "'),  whi(di  were  in  every  sense  American  ;  and  whicdi  are 
Jiot  alleged  to  ha\e  been  built,  litted-out,  armed,  e(iuii)ped,  or  nmnned 
in  any  part  of  the   Uritish  dominions;  and  in  the  7th  V'ohune  of  the 


^..      i«.>^i      !»»»•-».       .!■•.      itii         fl'ftiLii-tii      \i\r  111  I  ■  1  i\/iio  ^      (iii\t      III       iiiv       fill       T    ^/iiiiii\       ytv.      LlIU 

Ai)pendix  to  that  "Case,"  further  (daims  of  the  like  character  api)ear 
to  be  made  in  respect  of  the  acts  of  two  other  similar  vessels,  (  "  Bos- 
ton" and  "  Sallie.") 

It  may  be  here  observed  that,  by  the  getieral  list  of  (daims  fil(>d  in 
the  Srate  Deparlmcnt  of  the  United  States,  besides  these  vessels,  m)t 
less  than   eight  other  American   ships   ("Calhoun,"   "Echo,"   "  Jetl 


'A'-' 


u 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


^ 


>1:{I» 
r 


If- 

1 

f  '.. 


u 


Diivi.s,"  "Lai)\vinj>," ''  Savannah,"  ''  St.  Nicholas,"  "  Wiiislow,''  '•  York") 
in  resi)e(;t  of  wlio.sii  acts  no  chiim  is  now  niado  ajjainst  ilcr  Majesty's 
Govciiiinent,  ai)i)ear  to  have  becMi  also  engaged  in  belliincirent  naval 
operations  on  the  ])ait  of  the  Confedeiate  States,  which  resulteil  in  tiie 
destruction  of  ships  and  other  property  belonging  to  citizens  of  the 
United  States. 

When  Lord  Stanley  (24th  May,  1807)  si)oke  of  "  the  proceedings  of  the 
'Alabania'  and  vcsseln  of  that  c'/«.s.v,"  and  (10th  September,  18(57)  of 
'' claims  arising  out  of  the  depredations  of  the  '  xVlabama,'"'  and  "o/ 
rcsseitt  of  the  like  character  ;''  when  Mr.  Iteverdy  Jolinson  (L*,"»th  Marcli, 
1800)  si)oke  of  the  possible  public  claim  of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment, as  resulting  ((Hf6T  a/m)  "from  Wm  Jitthuj  out  of  the  '■Alabama' 
anil  other  nmilar  vessels  in  Her  Majestfs  ports,  and  from  their  permitted 
entrance  into  other  ports;"  when  Mr.  Fish  (U.jth  Sei)tember,  180'J)  spoke 
of  tlie  destruction  of  American  citizens  "  bi/  rebel  crnizers  fitted  out  in 
the  ports  of  Great  Britain,''  and  injury  ''  by  sufferin;/  the  fittiiKj  oat  of  rebel 
cruizers,  or  by  the  HuppUj  of  ships,  arms,  munitions  of  war  to  the  Con- 
federates;" when  iMr.  .Motley  (L'ad  October,  180'J)  spoke  of  "the 
destruction  of  American  commerce  h;/  criiizers  of  British  oriyin  carryiii;,' 
the  insurgent  Hag;"  it  is  clear  that  they  did  not  include,  or  mean  to 
include,  as  if  belonging  to  one  and  the  same  category  of  vessels,  shifts 
allegcHl  to  bo  of  British  origin,  aud  ships  of  American  origin,  witii  tlie 
litting-out  or  equipment  of  which  JJritish  subjects  had  been  iu  no 
■way  con<!erned. 

In  Lord  Granville's  instructions  to  Iler  Majesty's  High  Commission- 
ers, it  is  also  plain  that  the  former  class  of  vessels  alone  is  couteuiplated. 
In  the  narrative  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Sth  March,  1871,  contained  in 
the  ^iOth  Protocol,  it  seems  ecpially  clear  that  the  United  States  Coiii- 
luissioners  had  also  the  same  class  of  vessels  in  view;  for  they*  spoke  of 
"f/<6'  historif  of  the  ^Alabama''  and  other  craizers  which  luid  been  fitted  out, 
or  armed ,  or  equipped,  or  which  had  received  augmentation  of  force  in  Great 
Britain  or  ih  her  colonies;''''  and  they  expressed  a  hope  "that  the  British 
Commissioners  would  be  able  to  ]>laoe  upon  record  an  expression  of 
regret  by  Her  Majesty's  CJovernment  i'or  the  de[)re(hitions  (iommitted  by 
the  vessels  whose  acts  were  now  under  discussion.''^  Her  Majesty's  Coiu- 
missioners  (on  a  later  day)  replied  "that  th(\v  were  authorized  to  ex- 
press, in  a  friendly  spirit,  the  regret  felt  by  Her  Majesty's  Governuu'iit 
for  the  escape,  under  whatever  circumstances,  of  the  '■Alabama''  and  other 
vessels  from  British  ports,  and  for  the  depredations  committed  by  them  ;" 
which  exiu'ossion  of  regret  was  accepted  by  the  Auierican  Commissiou- 
ers  "as  very  satisfactory." 

In  the  lirst  Article  of  the  Treaty  itself,  the  expression  of  ller  Majesty's 
regret,  in  these  identical  words,  immediately  precedes  the  agreement  of 
reference  by  which  the  claims  referred  are  described  as  '■'■(jrowiny  out  of 
acts  committed  by  the  ((foresaid  vessels.''^ 

Tiie  necessary  conclusion  appears  to  bo  that  the  vessels  intended  to 
be  referred  to  in  the  Treaty  were  only  such  as  could,  in  good  faith,  be 
alleged  to  have  been  fitted  out,  or  armed,  or  ecpiipped,  or  to  have  re 
ceived  an  augmentation  of  force  in  vsonie  part  of  the  British  dominious— 
the  three  Ilules  in  the  Vlth  Article  of  the  Treaty  being,  of  course, 
material  to  be  regarded  in  determining  ,U1  questions  of  I'act  in  any  case 
alleged  to  be  of  this  nature.  The  "Sumter,"  "Xashville,"  and  other 
ships  above  mentioned  have  never  been  aUeged  to  conn;  within  any  of 
the  terms  of  tiiis  descrijttion,  unless,  iiuleed,  it  is  now  meant  to  be  said 
that  the  permission  to  any  Conl'ederate  vessel  to  obtain,  in  a  British  port, 
such  limited  supplies  of  coal  as  were  permitted  to  both  the  belligereut 


CO 

Parties  b^ 
»augm(Mi 
Second  U 
HI.  Th 
lcri!>ed  1>, 
\y  the  afn 
being  tli 
titration 
Jlusioiis 
rords  ••< 
lot,  with 
Icnse,  ''-e 
]ny  i)arti( 
:'g('d  to 
!l^i;iiitime 
foice   b(d( 
Ibitain 
ter  and   1 
jprociu'cd 
Itill  hidd 
In  nuMilte 
losses  wer 


"Thecl 
jBcd  as  fol 

"1.  Tlie 
yesscds  an 

"2.  The 
i  ";i.  TIte 
the  r.iitisl 
'  "  !.  The 
-  ",-».  The 
the  cost  ol 
\  "Soliir 
Committed 
Cdiupensal 
Bl;ites"Ca 

Mr.  Fisl 
Supposed. 
})ly.-  by  > 
tlie  chiini 
tlicieloie, 
bf  th-  evil 
led  to  thi! 
Oeciuate  i 
gesi  the  a 
«  From  tl 
V  tlu"  ical 

(his  lime 
(1'ensive  ( 
ors  iii'e  a( 
|)ught  not 
%her(div  ei 


hot' 


ilTRATION. 

'iiislow,"  "York") 
list  Her  Majesty \s 
belligerent  niival 
:;h  resiiltetl  in  the 
to  citizens  of  the 

|)rocee(lin}isof  tlip 
>teinber,  1807)  of 
haniii,"'  and  "o/" 
son  (L'.'itli  .Aliirdi, 
d  States  Govern- 
of  the  '  Ahihidua' 
an  their  permitted 
niber,  icS(iU)  spoke 
'liters  fitted  out  in 
Jlttiiuj  oat  of  rcbd 
■  war  to  the  Con- 
I  spoke  of  "tlie 
'sh  oriifui  carrying' 
hide,  or  mean  to 
)  of  vessels,  ships 
I  origin,  with  the 
had  been  in   no 

ligh  Commission- 
e  is  contemplated, 
1871,  contained  iu 
nited  States  Com- 

for  they  spoke  of 
icui  been  fitted  out, 
n  of  fon-L  in  Great 

"tliat  the  British 

an  expression  of 
ons  committed  tnj 

r  Majesty's  Com- 
antliorized  to  ex- 
sty's  Government 
Uihama''  and  other 
imitted  by  thvin ;" 
ican  Commission- 

1  of  Her  Majesty's 
the  agreement  of 
s  '■'■(jroioimi  out  of 

ssels  intended  to 
in  good  faith,  be 
d,  or  to  have  re 
itish  dominions- 
being,  of  course, 
f  fact  in  any  case 
iville,"  and  other 
ne  within  any  of 
meant  to  be  said 
,  in  a  British  port, 
h  the  belligerent 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING   GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


45 


parties  by  Her  IVIaJesty's  regulations  ought  to  be  deemed  an  improper 
'augnuMitation  of  the  force"  of  such  vessel  within  the  meaning  of  the 
lecond  I'ule. 

Ill,  The  solution  of  the  third  question,  viz.,  what  claims  are   de- 
scribed by  the  words  "<f//  the  mid  clfiims,  groirinfj  out  of  acts  committed 
\il  the  aforesaid  vessels,  and  (jenerieallij  knoH'n  as  the  Alabama  elaims,^^ 
"being  the  words  in  which  tlie  subject-matter  of  the  reference  to  ar- 
bitration   agreed  upon  is  defined,)  has  been   anticipated   by  the  con- 
lusioiis    already   arrived   at.      It    may  be  added,  howevei',   that   the 
Fords  "growing  out  of  acts  committed  In/  the  aforesaid   vessels"  can- 
jot,   without  fondng  them  altogether   beyond  their  fair  and  natural 
jense.  be   applied   to   (daims   for   indire(;t   losses,    not   resulting   iroiu 
]ny  i)articular  acts  committed  by  any  particular  ship  or  ships,   but  al- 
lied to  result  (so  far  as  they  may  be  referable  a^  '-ill   to  naval   or 
Jiaiitime  causes)  from  the  very  exist<Mice  on  the  high  seas  of  a  naval 
irce  b(donging  to   the  (■onfederate  States,  and  recognized  by  {ireat 
t'ritain    and   (^ther   neutral    Powers   as   having   a    belligerent   idiarac- 
|er  and  belligerent  rights.     If  the  (Confederate    States   had,  in   fact, 

f"  rocuied  all  their  craizers  from   Jiritish   sonnies,  this  criti(dsm  would 
till  liold  good  ;  much  more  when  several  (in  fact  a  considerable  majority 
an  niiMilter)  of  the  cruizers  actually  employed  by  them,  and  by  which 
Josses  were  inflicted  on  United  States  (dtizeiis,  were  otherwise  procured. 

PART    in. 

On  the  Amount  of  the  Claims  for  Indirect  Losses. 

''The  (daims  as  stated  by  the  American  Commissioners  may  be  das.si- 
ficd  as  follows: 

"I.  The  (daims  for  direct  losses  growing  out  of  the  destruction  of 
'Vess(ds  and  tiieir  cargoes  by  the  insurgent  ci'ui/ers. 

''L*.  The  national  expenditures  in  the  pursuit  of  those  cruizers. 
'   "."..  'fhe  loss  in  the  transfer  of  tlu^  American  commercial  marine  to 
the  lUitish  flag. 

"  !.  The  enhanced  jjayments  of  insurance. 

•'.->.  The  pndongation  of  the  war  and  the  a(^diti(Mi  of  a  large  sum  to 
the  cost  of  the  war  and  the  supiuession  of  the  rtdjcllion. 
'  '"So  lar  as  these  vaiious  losses  and  exjxMiditui'es  grew  out  of  the  acts 
committed  by  the  se\('ral  cruizers,  the  United  States  are  entitled  to  ask 
compensation  and  remuneration  therefor  ludbre  this  Tribunal." — (United 
Btates'  Case,  p.  dOD.) 

iMr.  l'ishol)ser\('s  that  "an  extravagant  measure  of  damages"  has  been 

iiil)posed,  not  only  by  the  liritish  press,  but  also,  "  nu)st  unaccounta- 
)ly."  by  some  of  the  statesmen  of  this  country,  to  be  sought  through 
he  claim  for  compensation  on  account  of  indirect  damages.  It  will, 
tlicndoie,  be  w(dl  to  present,  from  United  States'  authority,  s 'Uie  part 
of  the  cviden('e  which,  in  the  absence  of  explanation  or  retra(dion,  has 
ied  to  this  concepti(»ii.  Cndoulttedly  the  Case  (p.  17<>)  dis(daims  an 
hcciuate  estimate;  but  it  supplies  materials  wlii(di  cannot  tail  to  sug- 
gest tlu'  approi)riate  con(d)ision.  Tlu\v  are  as  Ibllows: 
<  I'rom  the  d(h  of  .July,  18(i;>,  (ireat  ibitain  is  declared  to  have  been 
I' the  real  author  of  the  woes"  of  the  American  peojjle,  (p.  17!».)  I'rom 
lliis  lime  "tint  war  was  pndonged  for  the  jjiirpose  "  of  maintaining 
jblfensive  o[)erati(»us  "thnuigh  the  cruizers,"  [iliid.)  And  the  Arbitra- 
tors are  accordingly  called  upon  "  to  dtdermine  whether  Great  Britain 
})ught  not  in  e(piity  to  reimburse  to  the  United  States  the  ex])ense3 
Ihendty  entailed  upon  them,"  {ibid.)     On  all  these  points,  the  Ca:;;'  pro- 


dP 


ry 

'i.   i 

t.   ; 

f' 

r  ^  't 

4 

\i- 

■ 

■(':(. 


•  fi  .  ^       ',   s'    " 


46 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


ceeds  to  state,  the  evidence  "  will  enable  tlie  Tribunal  to  ascertain  and 
determine  the  amount."  To  this  amount  interest  is  to  be  added  up  to 
the  day  when  the  compensation  is  pa,vai)Ie,  within  twelve  months  alter 
the  award,  (i>.  4S0,)  The  rate  of  interest  in  New  York  is  7  i)er  cent., 
{ibid.;)  and  ''the  United  kStati^y  make  a  claim  for  interest  at  that  rate" 
from  1st  July,  1803,  "as  the  most  equitable  day."  The  interest,  there- 
fore, is  to  be  charged  at  7  per  cent,  for  a  period  of  from  ten  to  eleven 
years. 

It  nuiy  be  presumed  to  be  incapable  of  disi)ute  that  more  than  half 
the  expenses  of  the  war  were  incurred  after  the  1st  July,  1803.  What 
Avas  the  sum  total  of  those  expenses?  Upon  tliis  jtoint  there  is,  in  a 
form  generally  if  not  precisely  ap|)ro])riate,  ollieial  evidence  from 
America.  Jn  the  Kei)ort  of  the  Special  Comnussiouer  of  the  llevenne 
for  18<i!),  (]).  vi,)  they  are  stated  at  {>,()l)r»,(H)(),()0()  dollars,  including 
l,iJOO,0(H>,()(K)  dollars  for  the  suspension  of  industrv.  Of  this  amount 
2,7()(),()00,()(»0  are  set  (h)wn  to  the  Confederates. 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  Case  does  nol  go  beyond  the  truth  (so  far 
as  this  head  of  damage  is  concerned)  in  stating  that  the  xVrbitrators 
would  lind  the  materials  sulliciently  supi»lied  for  estinuiting  the  amount 
which  "in  equity"  Great  Britain  ought  to  pay.  It  may  indeed  be  said 
that  the  anu)unt,  suggested  by  the  passages  and  facts  to  which  refer- 
ence is  nnule,  forms  an  incredible  demarul.  But,  in  perusi-ig  and  exam- 
ining this  Case,  the  business  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  has  been  to 
deal,  not  with  any  absti-act  rule  of  credibility,  but  with  actual,  regular, 
and  formal  ])leas,  stated  and  lodged  against  Great  Britain  on  behalf  of 
one  of  the  greatest  nations  of  the  earth.  Is  it,  then,  "most  unaccounta- 
ble," in  view  of  the  evidence  as  it  stands,  that  the  press  and  that  states- 
men of  this  c(uiutry  should  have  formed  the  idea  that  "an  extravagant 
measure  of  damages"  was  sought  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  ? 

It  appears  from  the  desi)atch  of  AFr.  Fish  that  no  such  idea  Inis  ever 
been  entertained  by  that  Government.  Having  this  authentic  assurance 
so  supi»lied,  it  may  be  deen»ed  little  nuiterial  to  inquire  whether  on  this 
important  nnitter  the  language  of  the  Case  has  been  misunderstood  by 
Her  Majesty's  Goveruaient,  or  whether  it  is  now  disavowed.  If,  how- 
ever, it  has  been  misconstrued,  the  misconstruction  undoubtedly  has  not 
been  confined  to  England,  but  has  been  largely  shared  by  writers  on 
the  Continent  of  Europe. 

Were  thisGovernnunit  indeed  prepared  to  acquiesce  in  the  submission 
of  these  claims,  it  wouhl  still  remain  to  ask  in  what  way  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  proposed  to  guard  against  the  acceptance  by 
the  Arbitrators  of  those  enormous  estimates  which,  taken  without 
authoritative  comment,  the  language  of  the  Case  suggests.  But  it  is 
scarcely  necessary  to  observe  that  the  question  of  more  or  less  in  this 
matter  is  entirely  distinct  from  the  (juestion  of  principle  on  which  the 
statements  and  arguments  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  are  founded. 


[Inclosuie  '.i  iu  No.  i:?.] 

General  Schencic  to  Earl  Granville. 

Legation  o.    tiil:  United  States, 

London,  2lst  March,  1872. 
My  Lord  :  At  a  very  late  hour  last  night  I  received  Your  Lordship's 
note  of  the  date  of  yesterday,  informing  me  that  you  had  laid  before 


C( 

iyour  coll 
fof  wliicli 
I  have 
la  memon 
Iwliich  y( 
Inuuiicatii 
IStates,  ni 
lAIajesty's 
them  to 
la  waiver 
llaviii} 
with  pie 
to  i)romo 
laud  beiuf 
linvitatioi 
jtliey  shou 
Icontainet 
[were  puri 
jany  contr 
[the  Uniti 
Your  L 
|the  whoh 
ivisions  of 
Itheir  claii 
[for  your 
I  is  sought 
And  Y< 
I  argument 
meat  that 
elusion  wl 
I  which  yon 
This  coi 
[hold  that 
[Geneva  tt 
i  forward  h 
Almost 
Lordship' 
i  I  nniy  be 
,  mail  stea 
•|  acknowle( 
i  hasten  to 
I  the  least 
I  may  be  tl 
I     1  have 

I     The  Kii 


I  Have  > 
'  without  I 
-     lieceivi 


■I- 


TITRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


47 


1  to  ascertain  and 
to  be  added  up  to 
elve  months  after 
rk  is  7  per  cent,, 
'rest  at  that  rate'' 
he  interest,  there- 
roui  ten  to  eleven 

at  more  than  half 
uly,  J  803.  Wliat 
:)int  there  is,  in  a 
\l  evidence  from 
■r  of  the  llevenne 
dollars,  including 
Of  this  amount 

the  truth  (so  far 
t  the  Arbitrators 
lating  the  amount 
ay  indeed  be  said 
ts  to  which  refer- 
rusi-!^  and  exam- 
imeut  has  been  to 
h  actual,  regular, 
itain  on  behalf  of 
most  unaccounta- 
is  and  that  states- 
"an  extravagant 
nt  of  the  United 

ich  idea  has  ever 
thentic  assurance 
i  whether  on  this 
nisunderstood  by 
vowed.  ]1',  how- 
oubtedly  has  not 
d  by  writers  on 

u  the  submission 
way  the  (Jovern- 
le  acceptance  by 

taken  without 
■ests.    But  it  is 

or  less  in  this 
»le  on  which  the 
t  are  founded. 


S'I'ATES, 

t  March,  1872. 
iTour  Lordship's 
had  laid  before 


four  colleagues  the  copy  of  Mr.  Fish's  despatch  to  me  of  the  27lh  ultimo, 
>f  which  1  furnished  you  a  copy  on  the  l4th  instaat. 
I  have  also  received,  at  half  |)ast  four  o'clock  to-day,  a  printed  co'py  of 
lii  memorandum,  which  you  refer  to  in  the  note  as  being  enclosed,  and 
|-\vliich  you  request  to  have  read  and  considered  as  part  of  that  com- 
Inuuiication,  being  intended,  as  you  inform  me,  to  explain  to  the  United 
[states,  more  fully  than  can  be  done  in  the  form  of  a  letter,  and  as  iler 
piajesty's  Government  is  anxious  to  do,  the  considerations  which  caused 
them  to  hold  the  belief  at  the  time  of  the  ratification  of  the  Treaty  that 
|a  waiver  had  been  made  of  the  claims  for  indirect  damages. 

Having  informed  me  that  Her  Majesty's  Government,  recognizing 
[■with  i>leasure  the  assurance  of  the  I'resident  that  he  sincerely  desires 
to  i)romote  a  firm  and  abiding  friendship  between  the  tsvo  countries, 
laud  being  animated  by  the  same  spirit,  gladly  avail  themselves  of  the 
{invitation  whi(;li  you  say  my  (Government  appears  to  have  given,  that 
Itliey  should  state  the  reasons  which  induce  them  to  make  the  declaration 
[contained  in  your  note  of  the  .'?d  ultimo,  you  add  that  tiu)se  reasons 
Kvere  puri)0sely  omitted  at  that  time  in  the  hoi)e  of  obtaining,  without 
[any  controversial  discussion,  the  assent  thereto  of  the  Government  of 
[the  United  States. 

Your  Lordship  then  proceeds,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Fish's  note,  to  discuss 

[the  whole  <piestion  of  the  right  of  the  United  States,  under  the  pro- 

[visions  of  the  Treaty,  to  put  forward  in  their  Case  juesented  at  Geneva 

their  claims  for  indirect  losses  and  damages,  and  to  state  the  grounds 

for  your  denial  of  such  right  and  the  arguments  by  which  that  denial 

[is  sought  to  be  sustained. 

And  Your  Lordship  closes  this  full  and  long  statement  of  views  and 
I  arguments  by  expressing  the  conlident  feeling  of  Her  Majesty's  (Jovern- 
inieiit  that  they  have  laid  before  the  President  ample  proof  that  the  con- 
clusion which  was  announced  in  your  note  of  the  od  of  February,  and  be 
I  which  you  thiidv  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  they  adhere,  cannot  be  shaken. 
Tiiis  conclusion  I  understand  to  be  that  "  Her  Majesty's  Government 
(hold  that  it  is  not  within  the  province  of  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at 
[Geneva  to  decide  ui)on  the  claims  for  indirect  losses  and  injuries  put 
forward  by  the  United  States." 

AluKvst  every  moment  of  available  time  since  the  receipt  of  Your 
Lordship's  note  has  been  occupied  with  the  copying  of  it,  in  order  that 
I  maybe  able  to  transmit  it  in  time  to  overtake  at  Queenstown  the 
mail  steamer  which  leaves  Liverpool  today.  I  therefore  make  my 
I  acknowledgment  of  the  delivery  of  your  communication  brief,  and 
hasten  to  forward  it  to  my  Government  at  home,  that  it  may  have,  with 
the  least  possible  delay,  the  attention  and  answer  from  there  which  it 
may  be  thought  to  re(iuire. 
1  have  the  honor  to  be,  verv  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

'  KOBT.  C.  SCHE^XK. 
The  Right  Honorable  the  Earl  Granville,  tbc,  tt'c,  do. 


No.  14. 

General  Schcncl-  to  Mr.  Fish. 


[Telegram.] 

London,  l*^  April,  1872. 
rou  any  objection  to  British  Government  hling  Counter-Case, 
[)rejudice  to  their  position  in  regard  to  consequential  damages? 
ed  at  9.40  a.  m. 


Have  ,v 

i  without  prejud 

Received  at  9.40  a.  m 


m 


i 


i 


i  : 


\f . 


m-:' 


48         CORRESPONDENCK    RESPECTINQ    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 

No.  1.-.. 

Mr.  Fish  to  (leneral  Schenck, 
[Tck'j^niin.] 

Wasiiinoton,  April  2,  1.S72. 
We  tiii(l(M'.st:iiii(l  tliP  IJritisli  (roVfriiiiKMit  is  bound  to  lilo  (Jomitcr-Case, 
and  t!i;il  their  sd  doiiij^  will  not  id'cjiidico  any  jtositiou  tlicy  lia\o  taken, 
lior  ali'ei't  any  position  of  this  (TOVCM-nment.     Tiie  vijj;hts  of  both  i)aities 
will  be  tiie  siuin;  after  tiliiijf  as  before. 
Is  the  iiKiuiry  made  at  their  re(inest  ^ 


li."  f 


mm 


is     , 
if 


Xo.  10. 
Mr.  Fish  to  General  Sehenel: 


Xo.  181.] 


J)KPA1{'J  MKNT   OF   StATI:, 

Wdshiiiiiton,  April  1(J,  1872. 


Snt :  I  have  given  very  ciireful  attention  to  the  note  of  the  20tli 
March,  addressed  to  you  by  ICiirl  (Jr;inville,  i)rol'essing  to  state  the 
re;isons  which  induced  lltn-  >ri\jesty's  (Toverunient  to  make  the  declara- 
tion contained  in  i'lis  j»revious  note  to  you  of  .'id  February,  that,  in  tlio 
opinion  of  I fer  Majesty's  (ioverninent  it  is  not  within  the  i)rovince  ot' 
the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  (rciieva  to  decide  U|)on  tlie  claims  for 
iiulire(!t  losses  ami  injuries  i)ut  forwanl  in  the  (Jaseof  the  United  States. 

His  Lordshij)  declares  this  statement  to  be  made  upon  the  invitation 
which  this  Government  ap[)ears  to  have  j^iven.  I  should  r<'j;ret  that 
what  was  intended  only  as  a  courteous  avoidance  of  the  nnked  i»resentn- 
tion  of  a  directly  opposite  opinion  to  that  which  had  been  expressed  on 
behalf  of  the  British  (Government,  unsustained  by  any  reasons,  should 
have  subjected  His  Lordshii)  to  the  necessity  of  .an  elaborate  rei)Iy.  it 
was  not  the  desire  of  this  (Jovernment  to  invite  any  controversial  dis- 
cussion, nor  have  they  now  any  wish  to  enter  upon  or  continue  such 
dis(aission. 

yome  remai'ks,  however,  appear  in  the  note  of  His  Lm-dshij)  which 
seem  to  require  a  reply. 

It  opens  with  a  seemiufi;  denial  of  the  jiccuracy  of  my  assertion  that 
claims  for  indirect  losses  and  injuries  are  not  put  forward  for  the  tirst 
time  in  the  "  ('ase"  presented  by  this  (lovernment  to  tln^  Tribunal  at 
Geneva — that  for  years  they  have  been  ])rominently  and  historically  i)art 
of  the  ''Alabama  claims" — and  that  iiu'ident.d  or  conseijuential  danui.u'es 
were  oi'ten  mentioned  asinclude(l  in  the  accountability. 

It  cannot  besu])i)osed  that  His  Lordship  intends  nu)re  than  to  say  that 
the  claims  for  indirect  or  national  losses  and  injuries  were  not  "  fornui- 
lated"  l)y  this  Goveriunent,  and  the  amount  thereof  set  forth  in  detail 
and  as  a  sp('cili(;  (h'mand,  I'or  he  admits  that  on  tht^  2()th  Xovember, 
180J,  within  a  few  weeks  after  t!ie  ''Alal)ama"  had  set  out  on  her 
careei'  of  |)illa,;;'e  and  (histruction,  .AEr.  Adams  suii'^'csted  the  liability  of 
Great  IJritaiu  for  losses  other  than  those  of  individual  sulferers.  In  his 
]U)te  ol"  that  <late  to  Lard  Russell,  .Ur.  Adams  stated  that  he  was  in- 
structed by  his  (Government  to  '•  solicit  redress  for  the  nationul  and 
private  injuries  already  thus  sustaiiu'd." 

On  the  l!»th  Februaiy,  LStJ.),  Mr.  Seward  instructed  Mr.  Adams  that 
"  this  (lovernment  doos  not  think  itself  bound  injustice  to  relin<iuish  its 


UITRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION.         49 


N,  April  2,  ISTli. 
lil(i  C'Diiutcr-Oiise, 
I  tlicy  liav(^  taken. 
its  ot'  both  piiitics 


F  Static, 

,  April  1(5,  1872. 

note  of  tiip  L'Oth 
iSiii<4'  to  sti)t«»  the 
make  the  dcclaia- 
iiiary,  that,  in  tlio 
11  tlic  pi'oviiK'o  of 
toil  tli(>  claims  for 
tlic  Llnircd  States, 
poll  tlic  invitation 
Klionhl  vcjiTct  that 
('  naked  jncsenta- 
en  expressed  on 
reasons,  shoulfl 
)orate  iei)ly.  It 
ontroversial  dis- 
or  coiitinne  sueli 

s  Lordship  wiiicli 

ly  assertion  that 

vard  lor  the  tirst 

th(^  Tribunal  at 

liistoiically  i)arl: 

jnential  daiiia;^es 

than  to  say  that 
ere  not  ''  torniii- 
t  forth  in  detail 
-'0th  November, 
set  out  on  her 
I  tlie  liability  of 
iilferers.  In  his 
that  he  was  in- 
10   natiiiHdl  and 

Mr.  Adams  that 
to  reliiKinish  its 


llaiins  for  redress  for  t ho  injuries  which  hn\e  remilted  J'roni  the  Jiftiutj 
hit  and  despatch  of  the  Alabama  in  a  liritish  porV 

As  the  ('on.seciuenees  of  this  littinj^'  out  be;>jin  to  develop  tlitm.  jlvea, 
\\\{\  their  ett'eets  in  enconra;;!!!};  the  rebellion  be(;aine  manifest,  Mr. 
idaiiis,  in  an  interview  with  Jionl  llu.s.sell,  indieated  them  (as  de- 
Iciibed  by  the  latter  in  a  letter  to  Jjord  Lyons  tinder  date  of  L'7th  March, 
]S().'j)  as  "a  manifest  conspiracy  in  thi.s  country  (Clreat  Jiritain)  to  i>ro- 
|uee  a  state  of  exa.speratioii  in  Aineri(!a,  and  thus  brinj-'  on  a  war  with 
iieat  liiitain,  a'ith  a  vicu''  to  aid  the  Confederate  eaase.^^ 

Ill  a  note  dated  ^V|)iil  7,  l.S(i;"i,  addressed  to  Lord  Uu.ssell,  Mr.  Adams, 
[iter  com|)laininy'  of  the  hostile  policy,  ])ursuant  to  which  the  criiiser.s 
iere  iitted  out,  says,  '-that  policy  1  trust  1  need  not  point  out  to  Your 
lionlship  is  Nubfitantially  the  dent  ruction  of  the  whole  mercantile  narii/ation 
\clo)i(/in(/  to  the  peoide  of  the  United  tStaten.''^  "  It  may  thus  be  fairly 
Issuiiied  as  tru<i  that  Great  Britain,  an  a  national  Power,  is,  in  point  of 
\t(t,/a.st  actiuirin;/  the  entire  maritime  commerce  of  the  United  iSlates.'''' 

Tliat  Lord  IJus.sell  regarded  this  as  the  foundation  of  a  claim  for  dani- 
Les  for  the  transfer  of  the  commercial  marine  of  the  United  States  to 
[he  tia«'  of  Great  IJritain  is  api)arent,  in  his  reply  to  Mr.  Adams,  under 
late  of  3Liy  4,  1805,  when  lie  says:  "1  can  never  atlniit  that  the  duties 
M  Cheat  IJritain  toward  the  United  States  are  to  be  measured  by  thelos.ses 
rhieli  the  trade  and  commerce  of  the  United  States  may  have  sustained." 

A^aiu,  on  the  L'Oth  May,  1805,  Mr.  Adams,  writing  to  Lord  Jius.sell, 
listiiictly  names  indirect  or  con.se<iuential  los.ses.     His  laufiuajie  is,  "that, 

addition  to  this  direct  injury,  the  action  of  these  liritish-bnilt,  manned, 
|iul  armed  vessels  has  had  the  indirect  ellect  of  driving''  from  the 
lea  a  larf;e  portion  of  the  commercial  marine  (►f  the  United  States,  and 
|()  a  c(nrespoiiding'  extent  enlarging'  that  of  (Jreat  Britain  ;"  that  "  in- 
uries  thus  received  are  of  so  grave  a  nature  as  in  reason  and  Justice  to 
[onstitute  a  valid  claim  for  reimration  and  indemnification.''''  In  the  same 
We  he  says,  "  the  very  fact  of  the  admitted  rinein  the  rateti  of  inn n ranee 
)n  American  .ships  only  brings  us  once  more  back  to  look  at  the  original 
|ause  of  all  the  trouble." 

It  is  diliicult  to  imagiue  a  more  definite  statement  of  a  purpose  to 
Require  indemnification. 

On  the  14th  February,  180(5,  after  the  presentation  of  the  above-recited 
^omplaints,  Mr.  Seward,  writing  to  !Mr.  Adams,  said  :  "  There  is  not  one 
leinber  of  this  Government,  and,  so  far  as  1  know,  not  one  citizen  of 
Ibe  United  States,  who  expects  that  this  country  will  waive,  in  auy 
kase,  the  demand  that  we  have  heretofore  nuule  upon  the  British  Gov- 
krniueut  for  the  redress  of  wrongs  committed  in  violation  of  international 
iw." 

And  again,  on  the  2d  May,  1807,  Mr.  Seward  writes  to  Mr.  Adams: 

As  the  case  now  stands,  the  injuries  by  which  the  United  States 
re  aggrieved  are  not  chiejlif  the  actual  Ionhch  NU.stuimd  in  the  several 
epredations,  but  the  first  unfriendly  or  wrongful  proceeding,  of  which 
hey  are  but  the  couse(pieiices." 

llis  Lordship  also  admits  the  mention,  by  Mr.  lleverdy  Johnson,  in 
March,  1809,  of  a  "  claim  for  national  losses,"  which  Lord  Clarendon,  iu 

paper    published    in  the   British    Parliamentary   Papers,   "Xorth 

merica,  ^o.  1, 1870,"  page  18,  defines  "  national  indirect,  or  construct- 
ive claims  ' 

On  15th  May,  1809,  I  instructed  Mr.  Motley  that  this  Government,  in 
rejecting  the  recent  Convention,  abandons  neither  its  own  claims  nor 
hose  of  its  citizens." 
Lord  Clarendon,  in  a  despatch  of  June  10, 1809,  to  Mr.  Thornton,  men- 
4  G  A 


m 


50 


COKRESPONDKNCE    KKSPECTING    OKNEVA    ARBITRATION. 


CO 


I     if 


;,%, 


.,.-11- 


I,     ; 


tinned  tliiit  ]Mr.  Motloy  Iiiul  Jissif-iiccl,  iiinoii*;  the  ennses  whicli  led  to  the 
rejeetioii  of  tlie  Johnsou-lMiireiidoii  treaty,  tluit  the  "('onveiitioii  Wi\n\ 
objected  to  l)eciMis(^  it  einhriieed  only  tlie  ehiims  of  individuals,  and  had 
no  reference  to  those  »)f  the  two  (lovernnients  on  each  other." 

On  L'."»th  Sei>tenil)er,  ISdO,  writing  to  Mr.   Motley,  I  said:  "Thoiinin. 
ber  of  ships  thns  directly  destroyed  amounts  to  nearly  two  hundred,  and  ^^ 
the  value  of  tiie  jiroperty  destroyed   to  many  millions.     Imlirccfl!/  the  fH    I 
<(tif<'<'(  was  to  iaci'i'iisc  the  rote  of  insKnincc  in  the  United   States,  and  to 
tab;  (iiniji  from  the  Cn'ilvd  Sttitcs  its  innnensc  fore'Kjn  ronimcn'e,  (uul  fa 
trttns/cr  this  to  the  nuMchant  vessels  of  (Ireat  IJiitain."     "We  <'omplaiii 
of  the  destruction  of  our  merchant  marine  by  IJritish  ships.''     "Tlic 
rresideiit  is  not  yet  i>r«'pared  \o  speak  of  the  reparation  whii'li  h(^  thinks 
due  hji  the  British  (loreriiment  for  the  larfier  oeeouut  of  the  vast  national 
iiijiuits  it  has  intlicted  on  the  United  States." 

In  the  same  instruction  I  also  wrote  what  seems  pertinent  to  the  pres- 
ent phase  of  the  (luestion  between  the  two  (Jovernments:  "  When  one  i| 
l)owei'  demands  of  i>notherthe  redress  of  alleyxMl  wronjis,  and  the  latter 
entertains  the  idea  of  arbitration  as  the  means  of  settlin;;'  the  question, 
it  seems  iirational  to  insist  that  the  arbitration   shall  be  a  (piaiitied  or' 
limited  oiu'." 

Lord  Clarendon  wrote  to  Mr.  Thornton,  on  (»th  Xovember,  IStli),  that 
he  was  ollicially  informed  by  'Slv.  ]Motley  that  while  th(^  rresideiit  at* 
that  tinu'  abstaiiu.'(l  fron.  i)ronouncinj^  on  the  indemnities  du(^  for  tlio 
destruction  of  piivate  i)ro])erty,  he  also  abstained  from  s])eakinj:'  "  of  the 
reparation  which  he  thinks  due  by  the  Jiritish  (lovernment  f(»r  tlic 
larijer  aevount  of  the  vast  national  injuries  it  has  intlicted  on  the  'Jnited 
Stales." 

Lord  Clarendon,  in  some  "  obseivations"  on  my  note,  (Ti.ue  Tiook, 
North  Ameri(;a,  >'o.  1,  1870.  ])a,ne  l.'i  et  .stv/.,)  dwelt  at  lenjith  on  my  alio 
ji'ation  of  national  or  indirect  injuries,  and  characterized  them  as 
'•  (7^n'//(.s','' and  resisted  them  as  such.  And  in  an  instruction  to  Mr, 
Thornton,  of  12th  .January,  l.STO,  he  reco^in/es  the  pai>er  as  relating'  to 
the  "Alabanui  Claims."  (Blue  Book,  Xorth  America,  No.  1,  1<S7(I, 
page  L'O.) 

It  ciiunot  bo  denied  that  these  ])ubli(!  or  national  ch;ims  (now  called 
'•  indirect ")  were  i)rominently  before  the  Senate  of  the  United  Stato.s 
when  the  Convention  of  lltli  January,  lS(ii>,  was  under  advi.sement  in 
that  body,  nor  thit  they  were  sub.seqnently  actively  canvassed  before 
the  peoi»le  of  both  countries,  and  especially  by  tlie  press  of  Great 
Britain. 

It  is  <M|ually  indisputable  that  in  my  note  to  3Ir.  ^NFotley,  of  Septeiii 
ber  iMth,  1S0!>,  to  which  Lord  (Clarendon  repli<'d,  thei'e  was  ])resent((l 
the  reparation  which  the  President  thou.uht  "due  by  the  British  (Jov 
ernment  for  the  vast  national  injuries  it  ha<l  inflicted  on  the  Unifcil 
States." 

The  otUli  Protocol  of  the  Joint  Tlifjfh  Commission  shows  that  the  indl 
rect  losses  were  distinctly  presented  to  the  notice  of  the  British  Com 
missioners  in  the  very  b;'^innin^'  of  the  neji'otiations  on  the  subject,  ami 
that  they  remained  nnchallenj'ed  to  the  sij>'nin;i;'  of  th(>  Ticaty. 

At  every  stage,  therefore,  of  the  proceedinj>s,  from  November,  18(ii!, 
when  ]\Ir.  Adams  "  solicited  redress  for  the  national  injuries  sns 
tained,"  to  the  date  of  theTreaty,  this  Government  lias  kept  before  that  ol 
Great  Britain  her  assertion  of  the  liability  of  the  latter  for  what  an 
now  termed  the  "  iwhrvet  injuries." 

Tli(!  President  now  learns  t\)r  the  first  time,  and  with  -surprise,  that 
Uer  .Majesty's  Government  accepted  his  suggestion  that  the  proposed 


omimssi 
uriiig  til 
hen.  (jriii 
lavegivci 
n  the  till 
or  the  mi 
t  is  not 
iovcriiiiir 
wo  (iovc 
if  o//  vaiisi 
'leiiipotci 
tvliii'h  arc 
ettleinent 
ettleiiieiit 
e  iiari'owi 
efereiice, ; 
nil  eld i Ills. 
The  Tie: 
ut  of  the 
iie  chiiiiis 
1  order  to 
roirinu  oui 
iKtwii  as 
iitioii." 
You  can 
ow  put  foi 
ibei'iitioiis 
U  Her  .A 
oiitiiiued   1 
lid  with  til 
lioniton  ai 
snliject  of 
ntlilioldin;^ 
of  Slid 
b.sciice  of  ; 
itlier  when 
lole  iiegot 
The.scclai 
md   with    I 
liciii   to  tll( 
rliicli  the  \\ 
tiiowii   as  1 
![>r!iially  ob_; 
the  scope  of 
Jiis.sinii,  aiK 
the  cnn.sider 
Hiissioiicfs, 
<bl'Jcctioii  to 
tilt'  chiiiiis  (j 
pintocol  as  : 
^lid  among 
ind  injuries 
■i  'file  positi 
IFoiiId  seem 
faiiced  with 
io  exceiitioi 


TITRATION. 


COHREaPONDENCI-:    RKSPECTINQ    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


51 


PS  which  h'd  to  the 
''('oiivcntioii  was 
lividuiils,  iind  hiid 
I  other." 

siiul:  "Tlio  mini- 
■  two  hnii(li«'(],  i\ii(l 
IS.  Iiidirfcthf  tlic 
t»'<l   States,  and  to 

I  rnnimmr,  ami  h 
,"  "We  <'oniplaiii 
ish  ships.''  '^Tli.. 
»n  which  lu^tliinks 
t'  the  r((.st  national 

I'tinent  to  the  pres- 
ents: "  When  one 
iijis,  and  the  hitter 
tlinji'  the  question, 

II  be  Ji  (inaiified  or 

veniher,  ISO!),  thiit 
the  I'resich'nt  at 
mities  diu^  Ibi'  tlie 
1  sjieakiii^'  "  of  the 
)vernnient  for  the 
I'ted  on  the  United 

note,  (Pjiue  llook. 
lenj>th  on  my  alio 
icterized  them  ns 
nstruction  to  ^Ir. 
alter  as  relatinji'  to 
rica,  No.  1,  LS70. 

■li.ijns  (now  called 
he  United  States 
iler  ad\iseinent  in 
canvassed  befoic 
e  press  of  Great 

otlcy,  of  Septeiu 
■re  was  jtresented 
the  British  (Jov 
on  the  United 

ows  that  the  indi 
the  British  Com 
n  the  subject,  and 

Treaty. 
Xovember,  ISOl*. 
n((l  injuries  sus- 
v\)f  before  that  of 
tter  for  what  arc 

ith  surprise,  that 
hat  the  proposed 


'oinims: 


iion  shoidd  tn^at  for  "  the  removal  of  thediileremies  which  arose 


rtu^ill^'  the  rebellion  in  th»'  Lnited  States,  and  whicli  liave  existed  since 
hen.  (jroicinij  out  of  tin:  <(cts  coinmitted  by  the  several  vess«'ls  which 
jiavc^iven  ris(^  to  the  claims  jjenerically  known  as  tin*  'Alal)aiiia  (Jlaims'" 
n  the  lall  conlidence  tliat  no  claim  would  bemadi^  by  the  United  States 
tor  tlic  national  losses  whicrh  had  been  continuously  presented. 

Ir  is  not  to  be  denied  that  "dilferences"  had  ari^m  between  the  two 
loveiiiiiients  respectinj;'  these  (!laims,  and  the  Treaty  attests  that  the 
wo  (lovernnieiits  were  desirous  to  provide  for  amicable  settlement 
){' (ill  <aiisrsi)/ili(f'/')'cn(r,ii]u\  for  that  purjtosc^  appointed  tlieir  respective 
Meiiipoteiitiaiies.  It  is  thusdeclare<i  in  the  outset  thai  the  aj^'reements 
vliicii  are  about  to  be  formulated  are  not  intended  to  be  an  '•  amicable 
cttleiiient,"  but  are  intended,  on  tlu^  contrary,  " /<>  })n>>'UU'  for  ;>  speedy 
ctllenieiit."  The  subject  of  the  submission  in  ;•  S'>i<-tim  Treaty  will  not 
>e  narrower  than  the  declared  object  soiinlit  to  be  uccuin|)lislied  in  the 
efeii'iice,  and  that  obJ(n;t  was  declared  tolu^the  lemo^al  of  <///  vnmplalats 
nd  rlidiiiK. 

Tlie  Treaty  also  attests  that  theditlerences  which  had  arisen, ///'o/fVHr; 
)iif  of  the  acts  <!ommitted  by  the  several  vessels  wliich  had  liiven  rise  to 
iie  ciaiins  t/riifricall!/  known  as  the  Alabama  Claims,  ,s7/// exist,  and  that 
n  order  to  remove  and  adjust  all  cotiiplahitx  aiifl  claims,  "■all  t\\o  claims 
won-iuij  out  of  tlio  ads  committed  by  tlie  aforesaid  vessels,  andf/r/ir/vVvf//// 
iKMvn  as  the  Alabama  (Maims,  shall  be  referred  to  a  Tribunal  of  Arbi- 
latioii." 

Ynii  can  bear  witness  that  not  even  an  intimation  of  the  character 
low  put  forward  by  Earl  (Tianville  was  made  at  any  time  diiriii}^  the  de- 
iherations  of  the  , Joint  IIi.i>li  (.'ommission. 

If  Iler  3Iajesty's  ('ommii.sioners  were  appointed,  entered  upon,  and 
oiitiniied  the  negotiations  with  this  (lovernment  under  instructions 
nd  with  tlie  conviction  that  the  correspondence  between  Sir  Kdward 
'lioiiiton  and  myself  did  not  cover,  and  was  not  intemU'd  to  cover,  "as 
subject  of  nej>'otiation,  any  claim  for  indirect  or  national  loss(>s,"  the 
ritlilioidin;;'  of  such  instriKitions,  and  the  abstaininj^'  from  the  expres- 
'  ;;  of  sucii  conviction  on  their  part,  was  most  iinlbrtiinate;  and  the 
ibsciice  of  any  dissent  or  remonstrance  aji'ainst  this  class  of  tlie  claims, 
litlier  wiien  first  fornially  presented  to  the  Commissioners,  or  diiriii};' the 
hole  ueji'otiation,  or  in  the  ]n'otocols,  is  most  lemarkable. 
Theseciaiiiis  were  ])resented  to  tlie  Ibitisli  Commissionei'sassi>lemnly, 
bid  witii  more  detiniteness  of  specilicaTion,  than  were  presented  i»y 
lliiiii  to  the  ximeri(!an  Commissioners  the  claims  for  allej^^ed  injuries 
licli  tlie  peojile  of  Canada  were  said  to  have  suffered  from  v.hat  was 
iiowii  as  the  Fenian  raids;  yet,  while  the  American  Commissioners 
[innally  obje<!ted  to  the  claims  lor  the  Fenian  raids,  as  not  embraced  in 
le  scoi)e  of  the  correspondence  which  led  to  the  Ibriiuition  of  the  Coni- 
;  lissioii,  and  recorded  on  tiie  protocols  their  iinwilliiinness  to  enter  upon 
■  he  consideration,  each  time  that  they  were  referred  to.  the  British  (Jom- 
•  lissioneis,  i'rom  the  first  to  the  last,  took  no  exception  and  recorded  no 
i  bjcctiou  lo  the  presentation  made  i>y  the  American  Commissioners  of 
!  he  claims  (jvik' rica  III/  known  as  the  Alabama  Claims,  whi(;ii  stand  in  the 
I  I'otocol  as  a  '■■  (leniis'^  or  class  of  (.'laiins,  conipreheii(lin,ii  several  species, 
'  nd  aiiion^'  them  enumerating'  six'cilically  the  claims  ibr  indiretit  losses 
'i  iid  injuries. 

')  Tile  jiositive  exclusion  liy  the  protocol  of  one  class  of  claims  advanced 
I  rould  seem  to  be  coiiclusive  of  the  non-exclusion  of  the  other  (;lass  ad- 
anced  with  <>reater  detiniteness  and  precision,  but  with  respect  to  which 
0  exception  was  taken,  and  no  dissent  recorded. 


I 


1)9 


62 


corrp:spondence  respecting  geneva  arbitration. 


It  is  (linicult  to  reconcile  tlie  elaborate  line  of  argnuient  put  forward 
by  Earl  (iranvilie  to  show  a  waiver  of  claims  for  indirect  losses,  with 
the  idea  that  at  the  outset  of  the  negotiations  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment (lid  not  consider  the  matter  of  public  or  national  injuries  as  the 
basis  of  an  outstanding  claim  against  (Jreat  Jiritain  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States. 

If  these  claims  had  (as  Lord  (Iranville's  note  implies,  even  if  it  does 
not  assert)  no  existence  in  fa(^t,  and  had  never  been  "notified"  or  pre- 
sented, and  were  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  .Joint  High  Commis- 
sion, why  is  so  much  stress  laid  U[»on  tlieir  assumed  relin<piishnient? 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  had  existence  in  fact,  if  they  had  (as 
the  references  which  I  have  made  to  a  corresjjondence  extending 
over  a  long  series  of  years  establish,  I  think,  beyond  the  possibility 
of  doubt)  l)een  frcipuMitlj'  and  i)ersistently  presented  and  notified  to 
the  British  (iovernnsent,  why  is  not  their  iiositive  exclusion  from  the 
reference  to  the  arbitration  sliown  i  AV':y  should  an  important  class  oi' 
claims,  measured  in  their  ]»ossibilities,  according  to  the  estimate  of  the 
British  press,  by  fabulous  amounts,  be  left  to  an  inferential  exclusion  ? 

What  interest,  upon  Lord  Granville's  theory,  could  Great  Britain  have 
i;i  the  proposed  ai)andonment  of  such  claims,  or  why  oiler  any  consid- 
eration therefor  ? 

How  can  Her  Majesty's  Government  contend,  at  the  same  moment, 
that  the  jireliminary  correspondence  excluded  the  indirect  or  national 
losses,  and  that  the  possibility  of  admitting  such  claims  as  a  subject  of 
negotiation  had  never  been  entertained  l>y  Great  Britain,  and  on  the 
other  hand  that  they  offered  and  considered  the  "amicable  settlement" 
of  the  treaty,  with  its  ex])ressions  and  its  recognition  of  certain  rules, 
as  the  consideration  and  the  price  paid  for  a  waiver  of  those  claims  by 
the  United  States? 

I  should  not  feel  justified  in  referring  to  the  expressions  used  by  Earl 
Granville  and  other  eminent  members  of  the  British  ParlianuMit  in  their 
legislative  capacities,  but  for  his  own  reference  thereto,  an<l  for  the 
responsibility  to  which  His  Lordshi[>  attempts  to  hold  you  for  your  pres- 
ence at  one  of  their  sessions,  and  to  which  1  shall  again  refer. 

But  the  reference  made  by  Earl  Granville  to  the  debate  in  the  House 
of  Lords  on  the  iL'th  of  June,  and  his  own  declaration  on  that  occasion, 
that  "they  (the  indirect  claims)  entirely  dinappear,''''  strengthens  the 
position  of  this  Government  that  they  had  been  juesented  and  were 
reeogniy.ed  as  part  of  the  claims  of  the  United  States. 

A  disapj)earance  certainly  imj)lies  a  i)revious  appearan(!e.  ' 

Lord  ("aims,  long  accustomed  to  close  judicial  investigation  and  the 
critical  examination  of  statutes  and  ot  treaties,  did  iu)t  agree  to  the 
proposition  that  there  had  been  a  relimpiishment  of  the  claims.  He 
declared  that  there  could  m)t  be  found  "one  single  word  •  * 

w  hich  would  prevent  such  claims  being  put  in  and  taking  their  chance 
under  the  Tieaty."' 

If.  therefore,  you  were  present  througii  the  whole  of  the  debate,  yon 
heard  advanced  in  the  House  of  Lords  as  well  the  opinion  held  by  thi' 
United  States,  as  that  now  i)Ut  forward  in  behalf  of  Clreat  Britain. 

It  is  true  that  I\Ir.  A<lanis  did  not  "define  or  formulate*' claims  for 
imtional  losses.  He  did,  however,  "notify"  them  to  Her  JNIajesty's 
Government.  During  the  war  these  claims  were  continimlly  arising  and 
increasing,  and  eoidd  not  then  be  "defined,"  and  the  time  for  "  fbruiu 
lating"  them  would  not  arise  until  a  willingness  to  entei' upon  their  coii 
sideration  arose. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  in  the  spring  of  18G3  Her  Majesty's  Gov 


I 


RATION. 

nt  put  forward 
!ct  losses,  with 
jc'sty's  Govern- 
iiijurics  as  the 
the  part  of  the 

even  if  it  does 
Dtilied  "  or  pre-  j 

lli,!;h  Coiimiis-  ^ 
uinishinent? 
if  they  ha<l  (as 
'iiee   exteiuliug 

tlie  possibility 
and  iKttitied  to 
iision  from  the 
l)ortaiit  class  of 
estimate  of  the 
iai  exelusiou  ? 
nit  Britain  have 
ffer  any  consid- 

!  same  moment, 
ireet  or  national 
;  as  a  subject  of 
tain,  and  on  the 
ble  settlement" 
i»f  certain  rules, 
those  claims  by 


IS  used  by  Earl 
lament  in  their 
to,  and  t(»r  the  | 
u  for  your  pres- 1 
refer, 
te  in  the  House  i 
\  that  occasion, 
trenf^thens  the 
nted  and  were 

ice. 

igation  and  the  I 

t  ai;;ree  to  the| 

le  claims.    lie 

#  ♦! 

ng  their  chancel 

the  debate,  you| 
lion  held  by  tbf; 
cat  liritaiu. 
ate"  <'laims  for| 
II«'r  JNIiijesty'sl 
ally  arising  aud| 
ime  for  "  foruiu- 
upon  their  cow- 

Majesty's  Gov- 1 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


53 


oniiiieiit  exhibited  some  iini)atience  when  Mr.  Adams  communicated 
losses,  and  claims  of  indemniHcatioti  therefor,  and  Lord  Kussell,  under 
diitc  of  !Uh  March  of  that  year,  wrote  to  Mr.  Adams  that  "  Her  Majes- 
ty's (Joveriiment  entirely  disclaim  all  responsibility  for  any  acts  of  the 
Alal)ania,  and  they  hoped  that  they  had  already  made  this  decision  ou 
their  jKiit  plain  to  the  (lovernment  of  the  United  States." 

In  -July,  18(>.'J,  Lord  Kussell  referred  INIr.  Adams  to  his  note  of  9th 
]\Iarch,  and  repeated  the  dis(!lainier  of  all  liability;  and  on  14th  Sep- 
tember, in  still  more  marked  lansuajie,  he  expressed  the  hoi)e"that 
iMr.  Adams  may  not  be  instruct<'(l  aj^ain  to  i)ut  forward  claims  which 
Her  Majesty's  (Jovernment  cannot  admit  to  be  founded  on  any  jirounds 
of  law  <))•  justice."  Lord  Itussell's  replies  to  Mr.  Adams  altoi'd  the 
answer  to  ]>ord  (Ji-anville's  remark  that  "nocdaims  (except  direct  claims) 
were  ever  defined  or  formulated." 

Ibit  although  the  United  States,  under  these  circumstances,  could  not 
consider  that  hour  as  the  most  favorable  to  a  calm  examination  of  the 
facts  or  i)riiicii)les  involved  in  cases  like  those  in  (juestion,  and  notwith- 
standing these  admonitions,  it  became  imperative  on  Mr.  Adams  still  to 
present  coi!iplaints. 

On  .'><lth  December,  1802,  he  had  complained  of  acts  with  the  intent 
to  "  pi'ocrastinate  the  war." 

On  Marcdi  14,  IStiM,  he  wrote  to  Lord  Russell  that  "  the  war  had  been 
continued  and  sustained  by  the  insurgents  for  many  months  past  mainly 
by  the  co-operation  and  assistance  obtained  from  l»ritish  snl)jects  in 
lier  Majesty's  kingdom  and  dependencies."  He  repeats  a  similar  com- 
plaint on  L'Tth  i^landi,  and  again  on  L'Stli  April.  <'oiipled  with  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  responsibility  attending  those  who  "  furnish  the  means 
of  protracting  the  struggle." 

At  no  tinu'  during  the  occurrence  of  the  events  which  gave  rise  to 
the  (litl'erences  between  the  two  (iovernments  did  the  United  States  fail 
to  present  amjde  and  fre<puMit  notice  of  the  nature  of  the  indirect 
injuries,  or  of  tlieir  inclusion  in  the  accountability  of  (Jreat  Britain. 

Lord  (Jranville  admits  that  Mi-.  .Fohnsoii  ])roposed  the  national  (daims 
in  Mar(di,  l<S(i!».  I  mentioned  them  in  my  iustrnctiou  to  .>Ir.  Motley,  in 
3Iay,  lSt>!»,  ami  again  in  that  of  Sei)teniber  of  that  year.  Although  I 
made  no  claim  or  <lemand  for  either  direct  or  indiiect  injuries,  I  did 
present  the  nifit  national  injuries,  so  that  Lord  Ciarendoji,  in  his  leply, 
manifested  no  dilheulty  in  discerring  that  the  United  States  did  expect, 
and  would  demand,  the  consideration  of  national,  imlirect,  or  conse- 
(pieiitial  losses. 

lean  t'leridbre  have  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  assertion  in  my  in- 
struction to  you  of  L'Tth  I'eltruary,  <'onimented  upon  by  Lord  (iianville, 
does  "accurately  represent  the  facts  as  they  are  shown  in  the  corre- 
spondence between  the  two  (jovernnients." 

Karl  (Iranville  endeavors  to  limit  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  (diiims, 
by  an  argument  based  upon  the  "  expression  "  the  "  Alabama  chiims," 
Mhicdi  (he  says)  (list  occurs  in  a  letter  whi(di  he  designates.  If  may  be 
■true  that  this  *'ex|)ression  "apjieared  lor  the  Hrst  time,  in  the  ollicdal 
correspondence,  in  the  letter  and  at  the  date  indicated  ;  but  His  Lord- 
ship overlooks  the  fact  that  in  this  letter  tiie  language  used  is  "  llii'so- 
icallcd  Alabama  cdaiins,"  showing  evidently  the  adoption,  lor  coPiVen- 
ienee,  t)f  a  then  familiar  term  in  common  use.  designating  by  a  short 
generic  name  the  whole  <dass  and  variety  of  (daims,  for  the  vaiious 
injnries  of  which  the  United  States  had,  at  ditferent  times,  made  eoin- 
I  plaint. 

The  (jiiestion,  however,  is  not  what  was  understood  by  the  expres- 


54  CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


COl 


IS'- 


It 


sioii  ''Aliibiuna  claims,''  in  1S07,  but  wliat  that  same  expression  implied 
in  1H71,  when  introdueed  into  the  Treaty.  It  niij^ht  not  be  diniculi 
to  show  thiit  the  expression  had  in  18(57  aetpiired  a  definite  sense 
lav  more  eomprehensive  tlian  tliat  to  whieh  Earl  (Iranville  desires 
to  restriet  it.  It  is  impossible  to  deny  tlust  in  1871  it  wns  as  com})vt 
hensive  in  sifiiiification  as  the  United  States  claim  it  to  Imve  been. 

The  oiheiai  eoirespoixlenee  of  this  Government,  which  was  publisliod, 
and  is  within  the  knowled^n'e  of  Mer  ]\Iiijesty's  Government,  inchuU'd 
the  indire<'t  injuries  under  the  expression  '•  the  Alabama  claims,-'  Tliey 
were  prominently  put  forward  iii  the  debates  and  the  pul)lic  <liscussi(»iis 
on  the  rejection  of  the  Johnson-Clarendon  treaty.  The  American  jucss 
abounded  in  articles  settin,ii' them  forth  as  part  of  the  "Alabama  claims." 

The  President  enumerated  them  in  his  annual  message  to  Congress, 
in  December,  18(><). 

The  iiritish  i»ress,  in  the  summer  of  1809,  and  subsequently,  discussed 
most  earnestly  the  indirect  losses  under  the  title  of  "Alabama  claims,"  -. 

Continentiil  jurists  an<l  publicists' di.scussed  the  national  claims  on 
account  of  the  jirolongation  of  the  war  under  the  head  of  "Iiccliuna 
tions'' having  "  (pi'un  rapi)ort  indirect,  ot  nuUement  un  rappsnt  dimi 
avec  les  deiuedations  reelU'inent  (!ommises  par  les  croiseur.s." 

In  tlu'  year  1870  rrofe.s.soi'  IMountague  Bernard,  subsequently  one  oi 
the  Commissioners  on  the  ])art  of  Her  Majesty,  and  whose  name  k 
signed  to  the  Treaty,  ]>ublished  a  very  able  but  intensely  one  sided 
and  i)iirtiid  defense  of  the  IJritish  Government,  under  the  title  of  ''A 
Historical  Account  of  the  Neutridity  of  Great  Britain  during  tlit- 
American  Civil  War."  TheXlVth  clmpter  of  this  work,  as  appciiis  in 
the  table  of  contents,  is  entitled  the"Alal)ama  claims."  I'mler  tlii> 
liead  he  i)re,sents  the  demand  made  by  the  United  States  for  redre,s> 
for"th(^  natioual  as  well  as  the  i)rivate  injuries."  Professor  Beriiiud 
knew  the  extent  of  our  comi»laints  and  of  our  denmnds.  In  tlii> 
work  he  summarizes  an  instruction  from  this  Department  to  tb 
minister  of  this  country  in  Great  Britain  as  jiresenting  "the  (»]>inion<i: 
this  (lovernment"  that  the  conduct  of  England  "had  been  a  vir^^uid  aci 
of  war."  He  siiys,  "The  estimate  which  the  American  Governn^  it  liii> 
thought  lit  to  adopt  of  its  own  claims  *  *  *  is  not  favor 
able  to  a  .settlement:"  that  iimong  the  renson-s  for  the  rejection  of  tin 
Convention  of  .liinuary  14,  1805),  was  the  fact  that  it  embriiccd  ohIi/  th 
claims  of  indivi(bials  and  had  no  reference  to  ihone  of  ihv  tiro  Hor- 
crnmriitN  on  rock  other.  He  sets  lorth  \hat  the  I'resident  assigned, 
among  the  reasons  for  his  disapjuoval  of  that  Ct>nvcntioM,  that  '•  it^ 
provisions  were  inadecpiate  to  provide  reparation  for  the  United  Stale- 
in  the  nninner  and  to  the  degree  to  which  he  considers  the  UnittV: 
States  entitled  to  redress,"  and  that  the  Ticsident  further  declared  tlia; 
he  was  not  tlien  (180W)  "prepared  to  speak  of  the  reparation  which  lit 
thinks  «lue  by  the  IJritish  Government  for  the  larf/er  m-eount  of  the  rn>.: 
national  injuries  it  has  inflicted  on  the  United  States."  And,  furtliei, 
that  this  Government  Jield  that  "all  these  ar«^  subjects  for  liituie  con 
sideration,  wiiich,  n-hen  the  time  for  action  nhidl  come,  the  President  wil 
consider  with  sincere  and  eaincst  desire  that  all  <H()'erenee.s  between  tin 
two  nations  may  be  adjusted  amicably  and  compatibly  with  the  homm 
of  each  and  to  the  ])romotion  of   future  concovd  between  them." 

\\"\\h  this  knowledge  of  the  demand  lor  "  ntdional"  redress;  that  tlit 
American  opinion  regaided  the  conduct  of  Great  Britain  as  "a  virtiia 
act  of  war;"  with  the  expressed  opinion  that  the  Anu'iican  estimate  n 
its  i'laims  was  extravagant;  with  the  knowledge  that  a  previous  (Hi: 
vention  had  recently  been  rejected,  because,  among'  other  icasons,  "i: 


lenibraced 
)f  the  Gov 
iiational  in 
ind  that  h 
\f'or  action 
jcrnard,  I 
jonimissid 
It  would 
guished  sti 
isii  side  of 
Jess  know! 
1  hold  tl 
nissioners 
luty  conn 
>t  the  claii 
to  liave  set 
I'^arl  Gra 
su.'U  "  the  . 
the  Treat} 
liVrl>itratioi 
to  give  to  t 
nipose  no 
afO'^t't  het\ 
rmnent  ol 
!ouui;itted 
enericalli/  1 
adJHNt  all  c( 
)r()vide  for 
)y  Her  JMa. 
5f//  the  said 
Vessels,  am 
^1//  the  cl 
f  ieferenc» 
That  whi 
consc(iuent 
whether  tin 
'Option  be 
pinion  of  1 
After  the 
ave  been  t 
)i  ((posit  ion 
t  is  appare 
he  Preside 
,'oui)h'd  wit 
Aonld  bi-  m 
•ctween  tin 
.'liliunal. 
t    I  as  deep] 
pi)>on  what  i 
liliavc  bei'U  t 
tvcry  propo 

rt  (ireat  Bi 
Aiioth  M'  I 
|by  us,  was  n 
•iput  ol)iectio 
tfis  it  was  nm 


3ITRATI0N. 

'Xl)ressi()n  inipliod 
it  not  bo  (litlicult 

SI  definite   st'iise 
(iraiivilln  drsiics 

it  wsis  its  coinint 
to  liave  been, 
ich  was  imblisliod, 
erniiK'iit,  incliuled 
na  claims."  Tlicv 
\)nl)li(!  (liscussidiis 
le  Aniovicaii  incss 
'Alabama  clairii.s." 
isage  to  Congress, 

quently,  discjusscd 
'Alabama  claims," 
latioiial  claims  on 
load  of  ''  licclama 
nil  rapport  (Umi 
iscnrs." 

b.seipu'ntly  one  ol 

ul  whose  name  h 

iitensely  one  sided 

er  tlie  "title  of  ''A 

iritain  during  tin- 

ork,  as  apjx'ars  in 

linis."     ruder  tlli^ 

States  for  redr('s> 

Professor  Jlernard 

leiuaiuls.     In  tlii> 

epartmeut   to  tlu 

ig  '•  the  (»i)iuion  o; 

been  a  vi>*^ual  iici 

n  (lovernu;  ;it  li;i> 

*        is  not  favor 

rejection  of  tin 

euibraced  onh/  tiit 

■e  of  ihe  tiro  dot 

■esident  assigned, 

ventiou,  that  'Mb 

the  I'uitcd  Sliitt'> 

iders  the   riiitcii 

lier  declan'd  tlial 

)aratiou  whicli  lit 

(vount  of  the  ray 

'     A\n[,  furtlici, 

ts   for  future  con 

le  I'resiilcnt  wil 

•oiri's  l)el\veen  tilt 

V  with  the  hoiioii' 

eii  Iheiii." 

re<lress;  tluit  tlii 

taiu  as  "a  virtiia 

'ri<'au  estiiuatc  v: 

t  a   previous  Cui! 

)ther  reasons,  "i; 


CORRESPONDENCE    EESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION.         55 

jmbracod  only  the  claims  of  individuals,  and  had  no  reference  to  tliose 
)f  the  (lovernmeut;  that  the  President  exjtected  reparation  for  the  vast 
\i(ttioit(il  injuries''^  which  Great  Uritaiu  had  iullicted  on  the  United  iStaes, 
iiid  that  he  "held  all  these  .subjects for  future  con.siderution  when  the  time 

\f(>r  uvtion  shall  come;''''  when  "the  tiuie  for  action"'  did  come,  Pri>fessor 
Bernard,  bringing  this  knowledge,  api)eared  as  one  of  Jler  Majesty's 
Uoinmissioners  to  treat  on  these  very  subjects. 

It  would  be  doing  great  injustice  to  the  other  eminent  and  distin- 
guished statesmen  and  diidouuitists,  who  were  his  associates  on  the  Brit- 
l^sii  side  ot  the  Commission,  to  entertain  tlie  belief  that  they  brought 
Jess  knowledge  on  these  points  than  was  held  by  Professor  Bernard. 

1  hold  that  enough  has  been  shown  to  establish  that  the  Britisli  Coni- 
iiissioners  who  negotiated  the  Treaty  did  not  enter  upon  the  impe"tant 
duty  coiD'iiitted  to  them  in  ignorance  of  the  nature  or  of  the  eXi'Mit 
)t  the  claims  which  the  American  Government  intended  to  present  and 
to  have  settled. 

Karl  Granville's  elibrt  to  Iin)it  and  confine  the  meaning  of  the  ex[)re.s- 
sicn  "the  Alabama  claims''  might  induce  one  who  had  not  the  text  of 
the  Treaty  at  hand  to  suppose  that  the  reference  to  the  Tribunal  of 
Arbitration  was  limited  by  the  restricted  meaning  which  he  attempts 
to  give  to  the  phrase  "  Alabanui  claims."  But  the  words  of  the  Tnaty 
Impose  no  such  limitation;  they  are  that,  "  Whereas  differences  hare 
iirisih  between  the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  tlie  (iov- 
?iniiient  of  Her  ]}ritaiinic  ^Majesty,  and  si  ill  exist,  (/roa-iny  out  (f  ihe  acts 
2ouiii;itted  by  the  several  vessels,  wlii<;a  have  given  rise  to  the  claims 
'jenerieaUy  known  as  the  'Alabama  claims.'  Now,  in  order  to  reinoce  and 
\£aljust  alt  complaints  and  elainis  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  to 
provide  for  the  sjieedy  settlement  of  sui;h  claims  which  are  not  admitted 
\)\  Her  Majesty's  Government,  the  High  Contracting  Parties  agiee  that 
»// the  said  claims ///'o/r/^//  out  (f  the  acts  committed  by  the  atoresaid 
vessels,  and  geiieri.cally  kiu)W  ii  as  the  'Alabama  claims,'  be  reli  rr.d,"  »S:c. 
All  the  claims  ijroicing  out  of  the  acts  committed,  &e.,  are  the  subject 
)f  reference. 

That  which  grows  out  of  an  act  is  not  the  act  itself;  it  is  something 
consequent  upon  or  incident  to  the  act — the  result  of  the  ai;t ;  and 
l^vliether  the  claims  to  which  ner  .Majesty's  Government  now  takes  ex- 
|ception  be  the  results  of  the  acts  coniniitted  by  the  vessels  is,  in  the 
)piiiion  of  this  Governnient,  for  the  decision  of  the  Arbitrators. 

Alter  the  positive  d  laration  of  Earl  Granville  that  it  "never  could 
lave  been  exiiected"  that  Her  Majesty's  Governnient  would  acce[»t  the 
knoiiositiou  ot  payment  of  a  gross  sum  in  satisfaction  of  all  our  claims. 
It  is  apparent  that  an  exposition,  at  this  time,  of  the  reasons  which  led 
Hie  President  to  hojie  that  the  amicable  settlement  which  he  proposed, 
(L'oiipled  with  the  suggestion  of  large  ])ecuniary  concessions  on  our  part 
^vould  be  made,  will  not  tend  to  remove  the  dilfereiices   now  existing 

^letween  the  two  Governments  resi)ccting  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Geneva 
Triltunal. 

I  as  deeply  I'cgret  that  H(  r  ^Majesty's  Governnient  cannot  understand 

lijion  what  that  hope  was   founded  as   1   deplore  what   now  appears  to 

ave  been  the  i>redeterniiiiation  of  Her  Majesty's  Goverimieiit  t(»  KJeet 

|Dvery  proposal  which  involved  an  admission  of  any  liability  on  tlu'  part 

ii)l  Great  Ibitain. 

j^    .Viioth  'r  proposal,  ha\iiig  no  similitude  to  the  i)revious  one  subniilteil 

ifcy  us,  was  made  by  Her  Majesty' <Coniiiiissioiiers.     They  aceepteil.  witli- 

|t)ut  oltjection,  the  Aiiieiieaii  statement  of  the  subjei't-matter  in  dispute. 
is  it  was  made,  and  they  propo.sed,  instead  of  the  "  amicable  settleiueiit" 


J  '&"-' 
'k 


-  !  h1 


56 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


1 
.1 


HJ: 


offerod  by  tlu^  American  Connnissionors, "a  inodo  of  sottlonioiit"  by  arhi 
tration,  a  liti{jntion,ala\vsnit  in  which  Gnnit  Britain  sliouhl  deny  all  lia 
bility  to  the  United  States  for  all  the  in.jnrie.sconii)lained  of.  After  sundn 
niodilications,  their  projiosal  was  a('c<'i)ted  by  the  United  States,  wlio 
were  thns  compelled  to  brinj;  before  the  Tribnnal  the  same  present?neiit 
of  their  losses  which  they  had  laid  before  Her  Majesty's  Uoinmissioii, 
The  siibject-matterof  the  snbmission  nnule  by  the  American  "Case"to  the 
Geneva  Tribunal  differs  in  no  i>articnlar  from  that  which  was  aec<'pted  as 
the  statement  of  the  American  claims,  without  objection  on  the  part 
of  the  ]»ritisli  members  of  the  Joint  llif>h  (commission. 

The  President  is  now,  for  the  first  time,  authentically  informed  that 
a  waiver  by  this  Government  of  the  claims  for  indirect  losses  whidi 
were  formally  i)resented  was,  in  the  oi)iiiion  of  Her  Majesty's  (iovern. 
nient,  also  contained  in  this  second  ])roi)osal,  was  a  nectessaiy  condition 
of  the  sn(!(;ess  of  the  negotiation,  and  that  "  it  was  in  the  full  belief 
that  this  waiver  liad  been  made  that  the  British  Government  ratilied 
the  Treaty."  Such  a  relin<|uishrnent  of  a  i)art  of  the  claims  of  tins 
Government  is  now  made  by  Earl  Granville  the  ])ivot  and  real  issiu'  of 
the  negotiation.  He  ai)pears  to  imi)ly  that  thepri(^e  paid  by  HerMajes 
ty's  (iovernment  .o  obtain  that  waivei'  was  the  concession  I'eferrecl  to 
in  his  liOrdship's  note,and  which, he  says,  would  not  have  been  ex])ecto(l 
by  this  Government  "if  the  United  States  were  still  to  be  at  liberty  tn 
insist  upon  all  the  extreme  demands  which  they  ha<l  at  any  time  sag 
gested  or  brought  forward." 

Here,  j'.gain,  is  a  clear  intimation  that  Her  Majesty's  (lOvernment 
were  not  in  ignorance  of  the  character  <tf  our  demands,  but  that  tlioy 
were  well  "AHo/r«,"  and  that  tin;  consideration  to  be  ])aid  for  their 
waiver  (whether  real  or  imaginary)  had  been  deliberately  determined. 

Is  it  not  surprising  that  such  "extreme  deiimnds"  should  be  waived 
on  tin'  one  hand,  and  such  "concessions"  made  on  the  other,  without  a 
word  of  reference  or  suggestion  that  the  one  was  conditioned  on  tlie 
other  ? 

You  can  bear  witness  that  at  no  time  during  the  deliberations  of  tlic 
Joint  High  ( -ommission  was  such  an  idea  put  forward  by  Her  Majesty's 
Commissioners. 

The  Protocols  are  utterly  silent  on  the  subject. 

Tiiat  no  such  reliiKpiisiiment  was  incorporated  into  the  text  of  tlip 
Treaty  is  cleai' enough.  Wliy  not,  if  thus  deemed  at  the  time,  by  Her 
Majesty's  (Jovernment,  the  hinge  and  essential  part  of  the  Treaty? 

Wiiat  are  termed  the  "concessions"  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  np 
pear  in  the  Treaty,  if  tln^  relin(|uishinent  by  the  Unit<Ml  States  of  a 
part  of  their  claim  was  the  (Miuixalcui  therefor,  why  is  not  that  set 
foi'th  ?  Tliroughout  the  Treaty  ar(>  to  b(>  found  recipi'ocal  grants  or 
concessions,  each  accompanied  by  its  reciprocal  eiiuivaient. 

How  could  it  happen  iliat  so  impoitant  a  feature  of  the  negotiation 
as  this  alleged  waiver  is  now  repi'csented  to  ho,  was  left  to  inference, 
or  to  argument  trom  intentions  never  e\pr(>ssed  to  the  Commission  or 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  until  alter  the  Treaty  was  signed? 

The  amplitiule  and  tlie  comprehensive  force  of  the  first  arti(^le(or  tlu' 
granting  clause)  of  the  Treaty  did  iH»t  escajte  the  <'ritic;il  attention  ot 
ilei'  Majesty's  ('ommissioiu'rs ;  l)ut  w.is  any  effoit  )na<le  to  limit  m 
reduce  the  scope  of  the  submission  or  to  ('xcliide  the  indirect  claims! 

You  were  infornu'il  in  my  instruction  of  ^^'l>ruary  -7  tiiat  this  Gov 
erurui'iit  does  not  consider  the  Treaty  as  of  itself  a  settlement,  but  us 
an  agreeuieut  as  to  the  mode  of  reaching  a  settlement.  To  that  opinion 
the  Pi'csideut  adheres.    He  cannot  aduiit  that  the  treaty  provision  tor 


|a  settleiiij 
jticttleineij 
set  forth 
:'lear  and! 
Ioiig-staii(| 
)f  fneii(ll[ 
pation  wil 
seat  of  till 
than  ail.  il 
pvceping  ol 
sacrifice  nl 
lin  satisfiuj 
The  Um( 
to  transfe 
hvithholdiil 
Sected    ]>r(| 
^'iVraniial 
<'  sub  sileu 
pllie  otter  ( 
pired  and 
Fontaine*! 
tion  with  t 
In  pen  a  gr( 
jAvas  repel h 
liinpossible 
|-when  then 
|a  waiver  a 
To  the  SI 
whether  " 
of  the  nati 
teriiational 
U'gument  i 
jneiit,  Gre 
jespectivel 
Tlie   firs 
Ithat    ''(ill 
he    a  fores 
;lclainis,'  sh; 
ijidniits  tha 
lot'  the  refei 
If  the  " 
tclaims  not 
hhen  such 
In  liK(>  I 
Jwere  not.  < 
Unit  I  )in/NclJ 
\]r,ut  of  flu 
iTiibunal,  } 
%    The  Pre! 
fpresented 
3:" claim  ;"'  1 
lAlabama  i 

Siby  the  ve^ 
Ikmr  II. 
I    AVhich  ( 
lowers  thes 

'i 


BITRATION. 


CORRKSPONDENCE    RESPECTING   GENEVA    ARBITRATION.         57 


^ttlonioiit"l)y  arbi. 
ilioiild  deny  nil  lia 
'dof.  Aftei'sinidry 
'iiited  States,  wli'n 
same  present m out 
^sty's  C'oinirnssioii, 
ri(!an"Case"t()tli(' 
eh  was  aecepted  as 
'ction  on  tlie  part 
in. 

dly  informed  tliat 
ireet  losses  wliicli 
Majesty's  (Jovern. 
e(!essary  eonditioii 
(  in  tlie  f'ldl  beliot 
Dvernment  ratiliod 
:lie  claims  of  tins 
t  and  real  issne  of 
)aid  hy  Her  INIaJcs 
•ession  referred  to 
lave  been  exi)eeto(i 
to  be  at  liberty  td 
I  at  any  time  sug 

'Sty's  (lovernment 
ids,  bnt  tliat  tlioy 

be  ])aid  for  tboii 
itely  determined. 

slionld  be  waived 
e  other,  witliont  a 
)nditioned  on  tlic 

liberations  of  tlio 
by  Her  Majesty's 


o  the  text  of  tlio 
he  time,  by  Her 
tlie  Treaty? 

rreat  Britain  ap 

it(>d   States  of  n 

is  not  that   set 

irocal  j^rants  or 

lent. 

the  ne<xotintioii 
eft  to  infeiencc, 
Commission  or 
'aty  was  siynedf 

rst  article  ((»r  the 

tic:il  attention  of 
lade  to  limit  or 
indirect  claims! 
that  this  (biv 
ttlcmeiit,  but  us 
To  that  opinion 
ity  provision  for 


settlement  is  in  .substance  or  lejyal  effect  the  .same  as  the  "amicable 
settlement"'  sjioken  of  in  the  conierence  hehl  on  the  Sth  of  March,  as  is 
set  fortii  in  the  Protocol.  The  ditterencu's  between  the  two  stand  out 
"Icar  and  broad.  One  woidd  have  clo.sed  up,  at  once  sind  forever,  the 
foiiii'-stiiMdin^'  coTitroversy  ;  the  (ither  makes  necessary  the  interi)ositiou 
)f  friendly  governments,  a  prolonj^ed,  disagreeable,  and  expensive  liti- 
gation with  a  powerful  nation,  carried  on  at  a  great  distance  from  the 
sVat  (»t' tills  (roverninent,  and  iiiidcM'  great  disadvantages;  and,  more 
than  all,  it  compels  the  reappearance  of  events  and  of  facts,  for  the 
Keeping  of  which  in  lifeless  obscurity  tli(3  United  States  were  willing  to 
sacritice  much,  as  they  indicated  in  their  proffer  to  accept  a  gross  sum 
in  satisfaction  of  all  claims. 

The  United  States  (;uii  assent  to  no  line  of  argument  which  endeavor.s 
to  transfer  the  waiver  of  claims  for  indirect  injuries  (imjilied  from  their 
jwithholding  the  estimate  of  tln^  amount  of  such  claims)  from  the  re- 
(ccted   ])ro])osal   of    the   American    ('ommissioneis    for    a    settlement, 
>' a'l'aiiiial)le,'' by  the  Joint   High  ( •oiiimissioii,  and  to   incorporate  it 
<'siib  sileiitio"'  in  the  arbitration  proposed  by  the  JJritish  Commissioners. 
Pi'lie  offer  of  this  (lOvernment  to  withhold  any  i»art  of  its  demand  ex- 
pired and  ceased  to  exist  when  the  acceptance  of  the  proi>osal  which 
contained  the  otter  was  refused.     It  was  never  offered  except  in  connec- 
tion with  the  projio.sal  that  the  Joint  High  Commission  should  agree 
lupon  a  gross  sum  to  bejiaid  in  satisfaction  of  all  'he  claims,  and  then  it 
ras  repelled.     It  a  as  never  again   suggested  fr»'ni  any  (piarter.     It  is 
jiiipctssible  for  Her  Majesty's  CJovernment  to  tix  njion  a  moment  of  time 
Avlieii  there  was  an  agreement  of  the  contracting  parties  respe(;ting  such 
la  waiver  as  that  to  which  Earl  Granville  refers. 

To  the  suggestion  of  doubt  contained  in  the  note  of  Lord  (iranville, 
,vliether  "  it  would  be  advantagecms  to  either  country"  to  treat  claims 
)f  the  nature  of  those  now  under  discussion  "as  ])roper  subjects  of  in- 
ternational arbitration,"  I  can  only  re]»ly  that,  for  all  jiractical  purposes, 
arguiiient  upon  this  (]uestion  is  suspemh'd,  inasmuch  as,  in  our  Jiidg- 
iiiciit,  Creat  Britain  and  the  United  States  have  bound  themselves 
respectively  by  the  Treaty  to  mak(^  such  submission. 

The  first  article  of  that  solemn  instrument  recites  and  decdares 
that  '■'(ill  the  said  claims  growing  out  of  acts  committed  by 
the  aforesaid  vessels,  and  geiierically  known  as  the  'Alabama 
claims,'  .shall  be  referred  to  a  Tribunal  of  Arbitration."  Earl  (Jranville 
admits  that  the  foiegoing  are  "  the  words  in  which  the  subject-matter 
of  the  reference  to  arbitration  agreed  upon  is  defined." 

If  flic  "Case"  of  the  United  States,  as  jiresented  at  Geneva,  contain 
claims  not  "growing  out  of  acts  conimitfed''  Ity  the  aforesaid  vessels, 
then  such  claims  are  not  within  the  reference,  and  must  be  soa<lJu<lged. 

Jn  like  manner,  if  any  of  the  claims  set  foith  in  the  American  Case 

^were  not.  at  the  <\ate  of  the  coDrsjxnulfucc  hctiiren  ISif  Jjliranl  Thornton 

(Hid  unisclf,  (in  .binuary  and  I'Vbrnary,  1S71,)  "geiierically  known"  as 

])art  <if  the  Alabama  claims,  they  are  not  within  the  Jurisdiction  of  the 

Tribunal,  and  must  be  so  adjudged. 

The  ['resident  admits,  unreservedly,  that  every  item  of  the  demand 
tpreseiited   at  Geneva   must,  within  the  meaning  of  the  Treaty,  be  a 
'f" claim  :"  that  it  must  be  one  of  the  claims  "  geiierically  known  as  the 
Alabama  claims,"  and  that  it  must  "grow  out  of "  the  acts  committed 
b\  the  ves.sels  which  have  given   rise  to  the  claims  thus  geiierically 

lilKIWll. 

^^■llich  of  the  claims  presented  by  the  United  States  at  (ieneva  au- 
|swer.s  these  requirements,  and  is  well  founded  according  to  the  true  iu- 


i 


iH' 


11.  :i.  .:•■■ 


58 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


.  ;;-■■■♦. 


P2 

■' ' '  V" 


m: 


tent  and  meaning  of  the  Treaty,  is  not  to  be  deterniiuetl  by  either  paitj 
litigant,  bnt  is  a  question  for  the  Tribunal  to  decide. 

1  luive  already  referred  to  the  eoinprt'hensiveness  which  the  expression 
"  Alabama  claims"  had  aciiuired  when  it  was  used  in  the  correspondent, 
and  was  incorporated  in  the  Treaty  in  1871. 

Lord  Ci ran ville  says:  "The  word  ryrHcr/w?/// naturally  signifies  that 
all  the  claims  intended  were  ejUHdem  (jcnvrixr  His  argument  would  it 
quire  them  to  be  ejuxdem  upecivi. 

The  word  was  designedly  used  to  embrace  a  "  genus" — a  ehiss  oi 
claims  divided  into  several  s|)ecies.  "  Genus  est  i(l,  quod  sui  simile 
communione  (piadam,  xitecie  auteni  diffcrentes,  duas  ant  plures  complec 
titur  parties." 

The  direct  losses  from  destruction  of  property  are  of  one  species;  thev 
differ  in  dates,  localities,  and  amounts ;  they  do  not  dilfer  in  charactii 
or  in  "  species." 

Ifeferriug  to  my  remark  in  the  note  to  you  of  27th  February,  that  tlit 
indirect  injuries  are  covered  by  one  of  the  alternatives  of  tlie  Treaty 
Earl  tJranville  does  not  perceive  what  "  alternative"  in  the  Tresit) 
covers  these  claims. 

This  Government  is  of  tlie  oi)inion  that  they  are  covered  by  the  alterna 
tive  power  given  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration,  of  awarding  a  sum  ii 
gross,  ill  <;ase  it  linds  that  Great  Britain  has  failed  to  fulfil  any  duty 
or  of  remitting  to  a  Board  of  Assessors  the  determination  of  the  validit; 
of  claims  presented  to  them,  and  the  amounts  to  be  paid. 

By  tiie  Article  VII,  "in  case  the  Trilmiial  find  that  Great  Britain  lia> 
failed  to  fulfil  any  duty  or  duties  as  aforesaid,  it  may,  if  it  think  projici 
proceed  to  award  a  sum  in  gross  to  be  paid  by  Great  Britain  to  tin 
Uniti'il  States  for  all  the  claims  refeired  to  it." 

If  Great  Britain  be  found  by  the  Tribunal  to  have  failed  of  any  of  it' 
duties,  it  is  clearly  within  the  power  of  the  Tribunal,  in  its  estimate  o 
the  sum  to  be  awarded,  to  consider  all  the  claims  referred  to  it,  whetlu: 
they  l)e  for  direct  or  for  indirect  injiuies;  there  is  no  limitation  to  tlui: 
discretion  and  no  restriction  to  any  class  or  description  of  claims. 

The  United  States  are  "prei)ared  to  accept  the  award,  whether  favor 
able  or  unfavorable  to  their  views."  They  are  conUdent  "that  it  sluii 
be  Just." 

Earl  Granville  refers  to  the  allusion  made  in  my  instruction  to  yoi 
of  L'7th  February,  to  the  presentation  by  Iler  Majesty's  Agent  to  tlii 
Claims  Commission  now  sitting  in  this  city  of  a  claim  for  a  part  of  tb 
Contederate  cotton  loan,  the  exi)ress  exclusion  of  which  from  the  con 
sideratioii  of  the  Commission  his  Lordship  admits  had  been  mutnall; 
agreed  upon  in  the  negotiations  which  preceded  the  appointment  of  tlii 
Iligh  Commissioners,  and  was  provided  for  by  the  wording  of  tli 
Treaty. 

He  thinks,  however,  that  there  is  no  analogy  between  the  jtroceediii; 
before  the  Washington  Commission  and  those  before  the  Geneva  Ti 
bunal;  such,  at  least,  ap[)ears  to  be  the  inference  to  which  his  arguiiui 
is  intended  to  lead. 

He  cites  from  Article  XIV  the  ]»ower  given  to  the  Claims  Comiiii- 
sioners  "to  decide  in  each  case  whether  any  claim  has  or  has  not  liii 
duly  made,  preferred,  and  laid  before  them,  either  wholly  or  to  any  (s 
tent,  according  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Treaty,"  and  li 
adds  that  "no  similar  words"  are  used  as  to  the  powers  of  the  (ieiu'v 
Tribunal. 

It  is  true  that  "no  similar  words"  are  used,  but  His  Lordship  has  ovti 
looked  the  much  broader  and  more  comprehensive  powers  given  to  tli 


CO 

leneva  i 
Examine 
iart  of  t 
^ajestv, 

these  . 
latter  r( 

The  siii 
|1i(;  chiiiii: 
persons  or 
If  theoth 

Articles 
^er,  the  d 
]ed. 

The  woi 

luce  to  til 

tan  be  con 

ect  oi'ref<' 

o  the  mat 

|he  Conini 

I  The  siil.J 
lliiiiiis  gro 
p^e  to  the 
10  remove 
tliiited  St: 
«|]aiins." 

ri  In  conne 
fie  Tre;  ty, 
i|lld  de  ::i^ 
§itlierGov( 
"  If  Lord  ( 
'ashingto; 
within  iti 
Piihunal  to 
if  the  Arti< 

II  The  alius 
ilotton  loan 
iiion  His  L( 
<l^oiis  whi(d 
#ere  also  u 
"fBent,  (tor  I 
jBi  the  ]»ar 
«nioiistrat( 
liaiin,  their 
aruunieiit ; 
■fts  Jiirisdici 
■Dijiilit  have 
■■t  The  claiu 
involving  ii 
&  iMy  aihisi 
'|ioii.  Earl 
#e  find  that 

tates  reiiKi 
'U)r  to  tin 
m  (who  it 
-fcearlyasti 
't6  l>e  excluc 


0 


BITRATION. 


CORRESPONDDNCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


59 


led  by  either  partj 

liich  the  expression 
lie  corresitoiuleiiee, 

irally  signifies  that 
Lrguineiit  would  it 

^eims" — .1  elass  oi 
1,  quod  sui  simile 
Lilt  pliires  coiiiplec 

)f  one  species;  thev 
dilVer  in  charactw 

February,  that  tlit 
ives  of  tiie  Treaty, 
ive"  in  the  Tre.itv 

eredby  thealteriiii 

awarding  ii  sniu  ii 

to  fnllil  any  duty 

ition  of  the  validitv 

l)aid. 

t  (Jieat  Britain  ha^ 
y',  if  it  think  propw, 
reat  Britain  to  tin 

failed  of  any  of  its 
in  its  estimate  o: 

erred  to  it,  whetlie; 

» limitation  to  tluii 

ion  of  claims. 

aid,  whether  favor 

lent  "  that  it  shal, 

instruction  to  yoi 

sty's  Agent  to  tlu 
I  for  a  part  of  tlit 
liich  from  the  con 

lad  been  mutuall; 

iil)pointinent  of  tlii 
wording  of  tlit 

'en  the  itroceediiij; 
•e  the  Geneva  Ti; 
V liich  his  arguiiuni 

le  Claims  Comiui- 
las  or  has  not  \w'. 

holly  or  to  any  t'5 
he  Treaty,"'  and  li 

ers  of  the  (iemv 

Lordship  has  ovi: 
owers  given  to  tli 


icneva  Arl»itrators  by  the  words  in  Article  II  authorizing  them  "to 
fcxainine  and  decide  all  questions  that  shall  be  laid  before  tiiem  on  the 
Hart  of  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  of  Her  liiitannic 
la.jesty,  resiiectively." 

These  grants  of  power  are  to  he  taken  in  connection  with  th".  subject- 
lattcr  r(lcrr<'d. 

Tlie  sulijef't-matter  of  the  reference  to  the  Washington  Commission  is 
|h(!  claims  for  alleged  wrongl'ul  acts  by  either  (U>veriiment  upon  the 
kcrsonsor  ))ro])erty  of  individuals  or  of  corporations,  citizens,  or  subjects 
>f  the  other  Government. 

Articles  XII  and  XIV  i)rescribe  certain  requirements  as  to  the  man- 
ner, the  channel,  and  the  time  of  inesentation  of  the  claims  to  be  exam- 
K'd. 

Tiie  words  "made,  i)repared,  and  laid  before"  have  no  i)ossible  refer- 
Ince  to  the  nature,  tlie  character,  or  the  ground-work  of  the  claim,  and 
|an  be  construed  only  as  applying  to  each  claim  which  is  a  i>roper  sub- 
Bct  of  reference,  the  test  of  the  recpiirements  of  the  Treaty,  with  resi»ect 

the  maniKM",  the  channel,  and  tlie  time  of  its  being  brought  bef(U'e 
le  Commission. 

The  subject-matter  referred  to  the  Arbitrators  at  Geneva  is  "  all  the 
llaiins  growing  out  of  acts  committed  by  the  vessels  whi(!h  have  given 
Ise  to  tiie  claims  generically  known  as  'the  Alabama  claims,'"  in  order 

remove  and  adjust  all  comi»iaints  and  claims  on  the  part  of  the 
Fiiited  States,  and  to  provide  for  the  speedy  settlement  of  such 
Jainis." 

In  connection  with  such  claims,  and  with  the  pui'iiose  expressed  in 
lie  Tie;  tv,  the  Arbitrators  ha''«'  the  broad  grant  of  power  to  "examine 
ind  dc  :  K  (dl  qucstiom  that  sliall  be  laid  befoi  j  them  on  the  [lart  of" 
pther  Government. 

If  Lord  (Jranville  can  find  in  the  words  he  has  (juoted   ]>ower  in  the 

'ashingtou  Commissiim  to  determine  wiiether  or  not  a  claim  presented 

within  its  jurisdiction,  it  will  he  difllcult  to  deny  the  same  power  to  a 
fribunal  to  which  the  more  comprehensive  grant  is  made  in  the  words 

the  Article  IL 

The  allusion  in  my  instruction  of  27th  February  to  the  Confederate 
)tton  loan  was  to  the  fact  that  a  claim,  one  of  a  class  for  whose  exdu- 
ion  His  J^ordshij)  admits  that  exjiressions  had  been  used  in  the  negotia- 
ions  which  preceded  the  api>ointment  of  the  High  Commission,  and 
rere  alst>  used  in  the  treaty,  was  lueseuted  by  Her  ^Majesty's  (Jovern- 
kent,  (for  by  the  Treaty  a  claim  (!an  only  belaid  before  the  commission 
b  the  part  of  the  Goveinment.)  and  that,  when  the  United  States 
Muonstrated  and  recpiested  the  British  Government  to  withdraw  the 
(aim,  their  remonstrance  was  unheeded,  and  the  claim  Avas  inessed  tc 
rgument :  that  tlu^  United  States  demurred  before  the  Comndssion  to 
ts  jurisdietion,  and  the  decision  of  the  Conunissioii  disposed  of  what 
>iglit  have  been  a  question  of  embarrassment. 

The  claim  was  put  forward  as  a  test  case,  and  wins  one  of  a  class 
ivolving  upwards  of  litty  millions  of  dollars. 

My  allusion  to  it  was  not  in  the  nature  of  a  complaint  of  its  presenta- 
i§oii.  Earl  (Jranville  has  kindly  furnished  certain  dates.  I-'ioni  his  note 
#e  fhid  that  it  was  on  the  21st  Xovembcrt  hat  he  learned  that  the  United 
Slates  reiuonstiated  againstthepresentationof  this  class  of  claims;  that 
^'ior  to  the  (Ith  December  lu^  had  asci'itained  from  SirFdwar<l  Thorn- 
tdn  (who  it  is  known  had  lett  ICngland  on  his  return  to  the  United  States 
•Bearly  as  the  2iSth  day  of  November)  that  claims  of  til  is  class  were  intended 
^  be  excluded,  and  that  the  treaty  contained  words  inserted  for  that 


>'L 


.,il^ 


60 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


•'■I 


.'■i-it"" 


It  •!  >4h-jc,  :  .ri 


object;  that  the  remotistraiiro  aiul  request  of  tlie  United  States  werf 
not  consitJeied  by  Her  Jlajesty's  (Joveinnient  until  the  11th  of  Deconi 
ber;  tliat  a  decision  tliereon  was  not  made  until  the  14th,  (on  whid, 
day,  I  may  add,  the  Aj^ent  and  Counsel  of  the  J^ritish  (iov«>rniii('iit 
t)r()uylit  the  case  to  trial  in  Washiiiji'ton,)  and  that  the  announeemeiit  c; 
the  decision  of  Her  ^lajesty's  (iovernnu'nt  was  not  made  -•  you  uiiti 
the  KJth  December,  two  days  after  the  case  had  been  adjud;^   .1. 

These  dati's  illustrate  my  allusion  to  this  case.  The  IJ'-i.ed  Stat(> 
calndy  submitted  to  the  Commission  the  decision  of  its  juriscction  ovc 
a  claim  involvinj;  in  its  priuc'iple  the  (juestion  of  liability  for  many  mil 
lions  of  dollai's,  which,  it  is  }i<lmitted,  had  been  expressly  ajjieed  toU 
withheld  I'rom  the  iHovince  of  tiie  Commission,  and  thereby  avoids 
jeopardinjj  the  Tieaty,  and  the  serious  embarrassment  which  mi<iht  liavt 
resulted  from  their  undertakinj;'  to  become  the  judges  in  their  o\v[ 
behalf. 

I  cannot  pass  over  without  notice  the  allusion  made  by  Karl  Gran 
ville  to  your  presence  in  the  House  of  Lords  on  the  occasion  of  th 
debate  of  the  lUth  of  June  last,  and  the  fact  that  you  did  not  at  ain 
time  challenge  either  of  the  cont''  ting  interpretations  of  the  Treat; 
expressed  on  that  occasion.  I  m.  ,'  a  '  '  that  similar  retlections  upor 
the  (,'onduct  of  this  (lovernment  in  th:  relation,  uttered  by  ]»roi!iiin'ir 
statesmen  and  news])apers  in  CJ  eat  IViitain,  have  been  made  pul)li( 
and  thus  brought  to  my  notice. 

To  all  of  these  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  President  does  not  lioW 
it  as  any  ]»art  of  his  duty  to  intert  .'c  with  the  differences  in  the  I'aiiia 
ment,  or  the  public  pressof  (J  *at  liiitain,  resjjecting  the  trueconstnii 
tiou  of  tlu?  Treaty.  The  utt*  lu'es  in  Parliament  are  privileged  ;  tlit 
discussion  in  that  high  body  is  looked  upon  by  us  as  a  domesti(;  one,  i 
which  this  Government  lias  no  proper  cognizance.  If  it  is  bouiul  t' 
take  notice,  it  has  the  right  to  remonstrate. 

To  concede  either  to  a  foreign  State,  would  be,  on  the  part  of  a  I'ni 
liamentary  Government,  the  abandonment  of  the  independence  wliid 
is  its  foundation  and  its  great  security  and  pride. 

Had  you  interfered,  therefoie,  either  to  remonstrate  or  to  demaiii 
explanation,  ,N on  would  have  expose<l  yourself  and  your  Government  t 
the  very  Just  rebuke  which  the  United  States  have  had  oci'asioji  t 
administer  to  dii)lomatic  Agents  of  torcign  Governments,  who,  in  igiii 
raiu'e  or  in  disregard  of  the  fundamental  ]»riuciples  of  a  Constitution;! 
Government  with  an  independent  legislature,  have  asked  ex])lanati(iii 
from  this  (Government  concerning  the  debates  and  proceedings  of  Con 
gress,  or  of  the  communications  i)y  the  President  to  that  body. 

You  had  a  right  to  assume  that  if  Her  ]MaJesty's  Government  desiici 
any  ollicial  information  from  you  or  your  Government  respecting  tli 
Treaty,  or  desired  to  convey  any  intoi'mation  to  you  or  to  your  (iovcii: 
ment,  they  would  signify  as  much  in  the  usual  ibrms  of  diplomatic  ii 
tercourse,  as  was  done  by  Lord  Granville  in  his  note  to  you  of  Febniiu 
3.  Certain  it  is  that  it  would  have  been  in  violation  of  recognize<l  diiil 
matic  ])ro))rietics  had  you,  on  the  occasion  referred  to,  taken  sides  wit 
either  of  the  op[)osing  views  of  the  Treaty  uttered  on  that  occasion; 
Parliament. 

Further  than  this,  it  appears  to  me  that  the  princii»les  of  Engli^ 
and  American  la'v  (and  they  are  substantially  the  same)  regarding  l! 
constiuction  of  statutes  and  of  treaties  and  of  written  instruments  yc 
erally  would  ])recln(le  the  seeking  of  evideiu'e  of  intent  outside  tl 
instrunu'ut  itself.  It  mi:,  lit  be  a  painful  trial  on  which  to  enter,  i 
seeking  the  opinions  and  recollections  of  parties,  to  bring  into  conllk 


CO 

le  diU'cri 
an  inst 
While 
le   emin 
Ibstains 
Ver\  III 
lie  memo 
Ijipropria 
Inch  is 
tii))lilicat 
lets  cssei 
lat  Trila 
resell  tati 
'(jiiire  a 
xVs  to  w 
listance 
|el»ruary, 
KMilpated 
bmitted 
laiiiis  on 
fere  i)res( 
ras  made, 
laiiied  of. 
lial  settle 
nibunal. 
ptates,  siir 
?signated 
fAViiat  t\\ 
it  ions,  an 
liability 
?terminat 
.  Should  tl 
idirect  or 
)ii  of  its 
cceiit  the 
Should  it 
lis  Gover 
>ith  in  liri 
Hth  tlie.ju 
vo  I'ower 
||Dd  claims 
g^To  tlieju 

?"    11,  as  tile 
iiect  the 
^ey  entere 
';         I  am 

0 

iii  General  ] 


ii 

it'. 


S 


tBITRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


61 


[Tiiitod  Statos  worf 
the  11  til  of  Doconi 
ho  14th,  (oil  whicl 
ti'itish  (lovoniiiiciit 
le  iinnoniiciMiHMit  oi 
;  made  -"  you  uiiti; 
n  adjud;,  .1. 
The  IJ-i.ed  Stnt(« 
its  Jniiscctioii  ovoi 
Dility  for  iiiany  mil 
)ro.ssly  afi'vced  to  lit 
id  thereby  avoidcc 
t  Avhieh  iiiifilit  hav( 
idges  in  their  ow[ 

nade  by  Earl  Gran 
the  occasion  of  tlit 
you  did  not  at  ain 
tions  of  the  Treat; 
iir  retlections  n\m. 
tered  by  ]>roniin(Mi; 
been  made  publit 

sident  does  not  holi! 
•ences  in  tin'  I'arlia 
g  the  true  constnii 
are  i)rivih>,ued ;  tlif 
s  a  doinesti(!  one,  o 
'.     If  it  is  bound  U 

the  part  of  a  Par 
ndependence  whid 

•ate  or  to  demaiiii 
our  Governnient  t( 
e  had  occasion  !■ 
nents,  wlio,  in  ij-iu' 
>f  a  Constitution;! 
iisked  ex])lanati()i! 
■oceediiif's  of  Con 
that  body, 
overnnient  desiroi 
lent  resi)e<'ting  t\\< 
or  to  your  (iovcii: 
s  of  (iipl(»nniti('  ii 
to  you  of  Febniar 
of  rccoj;nized<lilil 
(),  tal<cn  sides  \vi; 
on  tliat  occasion : 

inciph'S  of  En,i;ii^ 
anie)  re}iaidin<;  i! 
n  instruments  p: 
intent  outsi(U'  tl 
which  to  enter,  i 
brins  into  coiiIIk 


le  diiVeriiiji'  expectations  of  those  who  were  enjfaged  in  the  negotiation 
nil  instrument. 

Wiiile  the  Cnited  States  liave  nothing  to  fear  from  dei>artiiig  from 
K'   eminently  Just  rule  of  law  to  which  allusion  has  been  made,  it 
Ibstains  iioni  such  dejiarture. 

Very  much  of  the  matter  so  elaborately  and  ingeniously  {>resented  in 

lie  memoianda  attached  to  the  note  of  Karl  Granville  could  be  (itlyand 

ppiopriately  addressed  by  the  IJritish  Government  to  the  Tribunal 

diicli  is  to  i)ass  upon  the  points  presented  therein.     It  would  recpiire 

Iii))liticalion,  if  not  correction  of  statement,  to  make  it  jiresent  all  the 

jicts  essential  to  a  correct  judgment,  and  might  re<piii'e  a  reply  before 

jat  Tiibunal.    It  would  certainly  recpiire  explanation  as  to  many  of  its 

reseiitatioiis,  and  its  logic  wouhl  be  denied  ;  but  it  does  not  seem  to 

bquiie  a  rei)Iy  from  me  in  the  form  of  diplomatic  corresjiondence. 

As  to  what  is  contained  in  Tart  III  of  that  memorandum,  1  repeat  in 

distance  what  1  mentioned  in  my  note  to  you  on  this  subject,  of  27tli 

|ebniary,  that  the  indirect  losses  of  this  Government  by  reason  of  tlie 

iculpau'd  cruisers  are  set  forth  in  the  American  "Case''  as  they  were 

ibmitted  to  the  Joint  High  Commission  in  the  lirst  discussion  of  the 

laims  on  IMarcli  8,  and  stand  in  the  Protocol  approved  May  4.    They 

fere  presented  at  Geneva,  not  as  claims  for  which  a  specitic  demand 

las  made,  but  as  losses  and  injuries  consequent  upon  tlie  acts  coni- 

faiiied  of,  and  necessarily  to  be  taken  into  equitable  consideration  in  a 

iial  settlement  and  adjudication  of  all  I'ne  ditferences  submitted  to  the 

iriliunal.    The  decision  of  what  is  ecpiitable  in  the  premises,  the  United 

ftates,  sincerely  and  without  reservation,  surrender  to  the  arbitrament 

?signated  by  the  Treaty. 

AViiat  the  rights,  duties,  and  tiiie  interests  of  both  the  contending 

itions,  and  of  all  nations,  demand  shall  be  the  extent  and  the  measure 

liability  and  damages  under  the  Treaty,  is  a  matter  for  the  supreme 

^termination  of  the  Tribunal  established  thereby. 

J  (Should  that  august  Tribunal  decide  that  a  State  is  not  liable  for  the 

[direct  or  consecpiential  results  of  an  ac<;idental  or  uninte  .tional  viola- 

)n  of  its  neutral  obligations,  the  United  States  will  unhesitatingly 

ccept  the  decision. 

Should  it,  on  the  other  hand,  decide  that  Great  Britain  is  liable  to 
lis  Government  for  such  consequential  results,  they  have  tnat  full 
iitli  in  British  observance  of  its  engagements  to  expect  a  compliance 
[ith  the  judgment  of  the  Tribunal  which  a  solemn  Treaty  between  the 
Ao  I'owers  has  created  in  order  to  remove  and  adjust  all  complaints 
id  claims  on  the  part  of  the  United  States. 

To  the  judgment  of  the  Tribunal  when  pronounced  the  United  States 
jlill,  as  they  have  pledged  their  faith,  implicitly  bow.     They  confidently 
qiect  the  same  submission  on  the  part  of  the  great  Nation  with  which 
ley  entered  into  such  solemn  obligations. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

HAMILTON  FISH. 
Cieueral  Kobert  C.  ScHi:  tok,  <£c.,  dec,  ttc. 


^ 


■,liM 


62 


CORUESPONDENCE   RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARUITRATION. 


COl 


I 


tSl*s: 


,■1,1-  > '. 


I  .1. -v.  r '■*;.;. 


No.  17. 

General  Sehenck  to  Mr.  Fish. 
[Extract.] 

Xo.  lOS.]  Lkgatiox  ov  thk  TTnitki)  States, 

London,  April  l.S,  187:,'.     (HecoivtMl  Apiil  .'{(>.) 

Sin:        #  #  #  #  * 

1  spent  some  tiino  Avitli  his  liordsliip,  «)ocni>yiiij,^  mysolf  priii<*ii)nll.v  in 
the  (iidciivor  to  iiiiike  liiiii  niKlcrstiMid  liow  littN^  i)i'op(n'  coiiiprelM'iisio!! 
tlicre  is  licrc  of  tlic  stiite  of  pul>lic  f('('iiiif»'  iiiid  opinion  in  the  rnitcil 
States.  Tiiey  believe,  and  the  Government  iias  seemed  to  shai<'  in  tlu- 
ini[)ression,  that  there  is  a  very  general  desire  .'imonji'  our  people,  in 
cludinn"  the  most  of  our  pronunent  men,  that  the  elaims  foi'  indirect 
damaiics  shonhl  be  withdrawn,  and  the  Arbitrators  not  asked  to  consider 
or  decide  on  them.  1  explained  to  Lord  (Iranvilh^  tiiat  nincli  of  tliis 
]nisapi)rchension  comes  fi'om  the  course  of  the  Knulish  ])ress,  giviiij.- 
prominence  as  it  does  to  every  article,  letter,  or  i)nbli(;ati<in  ol'  any  sort 
comin<;'  from  America  or  purportinf>"  to  be  written  by  an  American  tiik 
iiijH  the  r.ritish  view  of  the  (piestion,  an<l  studiously  excludin;^'  all  tliiit 
would  tend  to  ]»rove  the  almost  entire  unanimity  of  our  ])ress  and  citi 
z<'ns  in  support  (»f  the  position  taken  by  their  (Jovernment.  1  wanici! 
him  ajjainst  trustinji'  to  the  corresi)omlence  and  writinj*  of  c(Mtain  pci 
soiis  and  journals  that  1  natned,  as  atfordin,ii'  any  true  exi)osition  of  tin 
general  sentiment  in  our  country.  And  I  represented  to  him  that  bdtli 
thft  (iovernnu'iit  and  citizens  were  much  more  {generally  concerned  to 
liave  all  claims  of  every  sort,  whether  rej>arded  as  substantial  or  shiid 
owy,  i;()  to  the  Aibitrators  to  be  decided  upon,  so  that  every  existing' 
com])laint  and  grievance  might  be  blotted  out  und  wiped  away  forever, 
than  they  were  troubled  about  eitlu-r  the  character  or  amount  of  tin 
award  to  be  rendered  by  the  Tribunal. 

What  was  most  es[>e(!ially  desired,  1  assured  him,  was  that  a  decisioi 
of  the  whole  cpiestion  and  extent  of  the  liability  of  a  neutral  should  In 
airive<l  at,  so  that  the  ride  and  the  law  for  all  might  be  known  in  tin 
future. 

Indeed,  aiiu)ng  other  things  I  told  Tjord  (Iranville  fraidcly  that  T  n 
gietted  to  have  to  inform  him  there  were  not  a  few  of  our  best  ])e()iii' 
who  were  growing  so  dissatisfied  with  the  position  which  Iler  MaJestV' 
(Jovernment  were  now  assuming,  that  they  were  beginning  to  say  tlia^ 
Great  JJritain,  they  supposed,  must  be  permitted  to  take  h<>r  course  iiim 
annul  the  Treaty,  in  which  event  the  Tnited  States  could  surmise  siid 
an  uidiapi»y  end  to  our  labors  and  hopes  as  well  as  this  Government, 

All  I  said,  an<l  there  was  a  great  deal   of  it,  was  expressed  and  r^ 
ceivcd   in   the  most  friendly  manner,  and  helped  to  give  us,  I  hope, 
better  mutual   understanding,  whetln-r  it  may  have  or  not  any  otln: 
<'ft('ct  or  residt. 

His  Ijordsliip.  I  am  mon*  than  ever  salislied,  is  sincerely  and  ]>aiuriill, 
earnest  in  his  desire  to  save  the  Treaty,  and  1  havti  no  doubt  that  tlii- 
is  (Mpially  triu'  of  other  ministers. 

f  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant. 


lion.  lI.\:\riLTON  Fisii, 

Secn'tKrij  of  UState,  WuHhiufjton,  I).  C. 


JfOJiT.  C.  SCIIENCK. 


\o.  1S4.] 

Sir  :  It  i 
iglit  hav( 
aims  (|U( 
lews  with 
liat  aie  n 
ssion  wh 
lie  and  m 
11  pose  npi 
[liicli  migl 
ilfeiciit  c( 
is  (iovcr 
le  I'.iitish 
iviiid  that 
>i'(it  doiib 
s  occupic 
liiiiiiiatcd  I 
iNcd  to  (pi 
'i'liis  (;o\( 
irve  the  ex 
ti<  nal  dii'l 
IS'citlier  tl 
|d,i:e,  any  c 
[clicd  much 
eJIpccted  or  ( 
(jTlicy   wci( 
(^niseis'  del 
qpiiscd  by  th 
aisdciatcd  M 
Jipliiison-Cla] 
t|le  Americai 
^niplaint,  ai 
^gli  Commi 
fil'liat  thev  • 
f«ilt  of  litis  ( 
] icing  left  i 
tH(n>l,  (signed 
tie  Trcii'ty  wi 
gjiissed  for  si 
'''  # 

Mie  riiited 
u  will  not 
respondcnce  \ 
mem  which  w 
between  th(>  t 
posed  of,  and 
brought  up  at 
the  two  (Jove 
Tlie  United 


f     ;       ,■■ 


UTRATION. 


CORRKSPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   AUIUTRATION. 

Xo.   IS. 
Mr.  Fish  to  General  Schencli. 


(J3 


TED  States, 
oivtMl  Apiil  .'H).) 

# 

solf  i>riii('ipnlly  in 
)(>!'  comprcliciisioii 
lion  in  tlio  rnitod 
led  to  sliiut'  in  tlio 
)u<X  our  people,  in 
laiins  lor  indirect 
tasiu'd  to  <'onsi(lcr 
that  iiiueh  of  tliis 
ilisli   pv(>ss,  giving; 
(tation  ol'  any  sort 
an  American  tiik- 
exelndinji'  all  tliiit 
t)ui'  ])i'ess  and  citi 
■nment.     1  wanictl 
in<*  of  certain  iht 
LI  exjyosition  ol'  tiic 
d  to  liini  tliat  both 
•rally  concerniMl  tu 
nltstantial  or  shad 
Ihat  every  existing 
il)ed  away  tbrevcr, 
or  anionnt  of  tlit 

as  that  a  decision 
nentral  shonld  K 
be  known  in  tlit 

frankly  that  I  re 
onr  best  ]n'o\)\( 
ich  Her  Majesty'> 
nninn-  to  say  tliiii 
vc  her  course  am. 
oid<l  surmise  siicl; 
is  (Joveinnient. 
'xpressed  and  r< 
<>ive  us,  1  ho])!'.  f 
or  not  any  otlii' 

M'ely  and  i^ainl'al!, 
no  (loubt  that  tlii- 


mt, 
C.  SCIIKNCK. 


[Extract.] 

Jo.  184.]  l)i:i'Ain':Mi;NT  of  State, 

Wunliiiuffon,  April  !*.'>,  ISTL'. 

Sil{ :   It  is  unnecessary  now  to  consider  what  action  this  (Jovernnu^nt 

ii^ilit  have  taken  with  regard   to  the  j)resent  ithase  of  the  Alaltama 

llainis  <|nestion    had  the   Uritish   (lovernment  calndy  presented  their 

lews  with  respect  to  their  constrnction  of  the  treaty  in   relation    to 

hat  are  now  familiarly  calle<l  "•tin' indir<'ct  claims.*'     Tln^  j)nblic  dis- 

ission  which  they  have  thonyht  i)roper  to  excite,  and  the  discourteous 

tnc  and  minatory  intimations  of  sonwof  the  utteran(!es  of  the  ministiy, 

tilMtse  ujion  the   Unitecl  States  a  ditferent   line  of    action  from  that 

lliicli  mifjlit  have  been  adopted  in  rcsp(uise  to  a  calm  ]»resentation  of  a 

jllcreiit  <'onstrnction   of  the  Ticaty  from  that  which  is  entertained  by 

lis  (iovernment,  and  of  t'.e  ai)prehensions  whicli  tiie  imajuination  of 

le  r.ritish  public  seem  tc  enteitain  of  the  ])ossil>Ie  maj-nitude  of  the 

Isvard  that  may  be  made  tor  that  class  of  the  claims. 

^>'()t  doubting  the  corr<*ctness  of  the   jiosition  uhich  this  (Jovei'innent 

IS  occnpied,  and   Inlly  convinced  that  the  "  indirect  claims"  were  not 

|iniinatcd  Irtmi  the /.general  c()mj)]aint  of  tlu  United  State. ,  1  amiM)t  dis- 

)s((l  lo  (piesiion  the  sinct'iity  of  these  who  hold  to  the  ojtjio.'-ite  view. 

jTiiis  (lo\erument  is  ^('ry  anxious  to  uiaintain  the  Treaty,  and  to  i)re- 

^ive  tlic  example  which  it  allouls  of  a  peacelnl  mode  <»f  settling  inter- 

iti(  nal  differences  of  the  veiy  f^ravest  character. 

j>icitlier  the  (loveiiiment  of  the  United  Stales,  nor,  so  far  as  I  can 
jduc,  any  ciiusiderable  number  of  the  Ameiican  ]ieo]»]e,  have  e\er  at- 
K'lu(l  nuMtii  iini»ortance  to  the  so-called  "•  indirect  claims,"'  or  have  ever 
|l)ectcd  or  desired  any  award  of  damajics  on  their  account. 
iTliey  were  advanced  durinj^'  the  oc<-urrence  of  the  events  of  the 
luiscrs'  de]iredati(Uis,  and  pcudi)i^'  tiie  excivenu-nt  and  the  irritation 
hiscd  by  the  conduct  of  (ireat  Jhitain.  They  becanu^  more  inominently 
psociated  with  the  case  dnrin,ii'  tln^  discussions  attendant  upon  the 
ilinsonClarendon  Tri'aty,  and  its  icjecvion;  and  it  was  impossible  for 
le  Anii'rican  Commissioners  not  to  lay  tln'm  as  ynvt  ol  the  Amerii  an 
Imphiint,  and  as  formiiiji  i)art  of  the  American  claims,  before  the  .Joint 
Jjiii  Commission. 

[Tiiat  they  were  not  excepted  to  by  the  IJritish  Commissioners  is  no 
lliU  of  this  (lovernment. 

I5('in,y  lett  in  tin'  <'ompliiint,  and  set  forth,  unchalleuincd,  in  the  Uro- 

[jol,  (sij^iied  only  fonr  <iays  before  the  sij^iiinfi'  of  the  Treaty,  and  when 

Treaty  was  comi)let('(l   in   form  and  substance,  and  was  beinji'  ( ii- 

>ssed  Ibr  signature.)  tlu'y  ( ould  not  be  omitted  Irom  the  '"Case." 

*-      '  #  '       *  *  #  -* 

The  United  States  now  desire  no  iiecuniar.N  awai'd  on  their  account. 

fu  will  not   tail  to  have   no: iced   that  throujih  the  whole  of  my  cor-. 

S]>on(l('nce  we  ask  no  dania.ues  on  their  account,  we  only  desire  a  Jud;^- 

iul  which  will  remox'c  them  lor  all  future  time  as  a  cause  of  ditference 

twcen  the  two  (loveruuH'nts.     In  o.sr  opinion  they  have  not  been  dis- 

P!^i'(l  of,  and  unless  disposed  of,  iu  some  way,  they  will  renniiu  to  be 

lM|)uj;lit  up  at  some  future  time  to  the  disturbance  of  the  harmony  of 

tM  two  (lovernments. 

The  United  States  are  sincere  in  desiring  a  "tabula  rasa''  on  this 


i 


i!     •  5 


f.   '^ 


..!^v-  >■■ 


64 


correspondp:nce  respecting  geneva  arbitration. 


Alabiuna  qiu'stioti,  and  tlK'n'tbre  tlioy  (h\sin;  ajiuljjmeiit  upon  tlii'iu  by 

the  (Iciieva  Tiibiiiial. 

******* 

In  the  corrt'spondonco,  1  Iiavo  jjoi'C  ''i**  bir  as  pnuk'ncc  would  allow  in 
intimating'  that  we  ni-itlicr  dcsiiod  or  cxpcctcil  any  iiccuniavy  award, 
and  tliat  we  islionld  be  content  with  an  award  that  a  Stale  is  not  liable 
in  peeuniary  daniaj^es  tor  the  indirect  results  of  a  failure  to  observe  its 
neutral  obligations. 

It  i.s  not  tiie  interest  of  a  country  situate  as  are  the  United  States, 
with  their  larye  extent  of  seaeoast,  a  small  Navy,  an«l  smaller  internal 
police,  to  have  it  established  that  a  nation  is  liable  in  (bimap's  for  tlu; 
indirect,  lemote,  or  conse(jnential  results  of  a  failure  to  observe  its 
neutral  duties.  This  Government  expects  to  be  in  the  future,  as  it  has  j 
been  in  the  past,  a  n«'utral  much  nu)re  of  the  tin»e  than  a  bellijucrent. 

It  is  stran^ic  tliat  the  Ilritish  (iovernment  does  not  see  that  the  inter- 
ests of  this  (Iovernment  do  not  lead  them  to  expect  or  to  <lesire  a  judjf- 
ment  on  the  "indirect  claims;''  and  that  they  tail  to  do  Justice  to  the 
sincerity  of  purpose,  in  the  interests  of  the  future  harmony  of  tlu^  twoi 
nations,  which  has  led  the  United  States  to  lay  those  claims  before  the 

Tribunal  at  Geneva. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  • 

I  need  not  repeat  to  you  the  earnestness  of  the  President's  desire  t(i 
prevent  a  failure  of  the  Arbitration,  or  any  rei)udiation  of  a  Treaty  whicli 
is  so  hopeful  of  bc^neticent  results,  nor  nee(l  1  urj;e  you  to  continued 
elt'orts,  by  all  that  is  in  your  i)ower,  consistently  with  the  honor  ami 
dignity  of  this  nation,  to  briny  about  an  honorable  nnderstandinj>'  bi- 
tween  the  two  Governments  on  this  <pu'stion,  which  has  been,  as  it  ap- 
pears to  us,  so  unnecessarily  and  unwisely  raised,  to  the  imminent  peril 
of  an  imi»ortant  Treaty. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

ha:miltox  fish. 

General  Hobert  C.  Sciienck,  tCc,  etc.,  tkc. 


.■•«''S  «,;■.■•■' 


No.  19. 


General  ScUenck  to  Mr.  Fish. 


■■■;  V.*"" 
■'■<'  ■'..  ■''■' 


■3. 1." 
'■ ,  r 

in  A 


[Extniet.J 

Kg.  210.]  Legation  of  tue  United  States, 

Londun,  April  25,  1872. 

Sir:  At  this  moment  it  appears  too  probable  that  the  Governmeui 
here  will        *  *  *  *  *  #  • 

take  such  a  course  as  will  put  au  end  to  the  Arbitration  at  Geneva  aud 
to  the  Treaty. 

I  will  not  now  attempt  to  explain  or  comment  on  the  situation.  Tin 
•development  and  the  events  of  the  last  lew  days  ycu  will  have  gatli 
ered  from  my  telegraphic  communications,  and  from  the  reports  of  pro 
ceedings  in  Parliament,  and  articles  from  the  London  journals,  which  1 
continue  to  send  you. 

If  there  is  to  be  a  disastrous  termination  of  all  our  v  k,  from  whifli 
we  had  hoped  so  much  of  good  for  the  two  countries  a  '.  'or  the  world. 
the  obstinate  refusal  of  the  British  Government  and  people  to  go  on 
Avith  a  solemn  aud  high  eugagemeut  that,  without  any  sacrifice  of  tbtii 


COKltKSPONDKNOK    RKSl'KCTING    GEXKVA    AKIUTKATION. 


Gf. 


dignity  iiml  iiitci'csts.  iiii^lit  liiivc  liccii  ('oiidiicti'd  to  m  ('oiicliisioii  wliicli 
wiiiilil  liiivr  blnttcil  iiwn.v  nil  sciiitiis  ciinscs  of  (lisii^rccmciit  Ix'twccii 
llit'iii  iiiitl  us,  will  !)(!  not  a  little  o\\  iii,^'  to  the  course  of  some  of  our  o\\  n 
I'iti/eiis. 

'i'lie  (lililiciiltii's  liiive  l)eeii  woiiderfully  increased  of  late,  anTi  (Ireat 
I'.iiliiiii  eiicourau'cd  in  lier  i»ositioii  by  tlie  tone  of  some  of  the  Ameri- 
iiaii  joarnals,  l»y  iuconsiilerate  declarations  of  some  public  men,  and  i>y 
liiiiu'li  wiitinji',  tele;^i'a|>liinj4',  aud  conversation,  not  vise  and  thou;;litluI, 
iIkiii^Ii  .generally,  perliaps,  not  miscliievously  intended,  Tiiis  lias  led 
lilt  last  to  a  common  cou\iction  here  that  tiu>  best  and  most  inlluential 
liiicii  of  the  United  ^States  desire  to  liaNc  oui'  (lovernment  recede  I'ront 
jits  position. 

I  await  still  your  communication  in  rcjily  to  liord  (iranville's  note  of 
Itlif  :.'<'th  ultimo.     I  hope,  also,  with  that,  or  sooner  by  telejiiapli,  to  re- 
Iccive  instructions  fi'om  you,  which  may  direct  and  help  nu'  in  any  con- 
It  inncncy  likely  to  occur.     I   shall  doubtless  hav(^  much  to  rcjKtrt  and 
|brin.!.r  to  your  consideration  now  vei-y  soon.     In  the  mean  time,  1  will  not 
till  to  keep  my  mind  anxiously  directed  to  any  and  every  expedient  by 
|wliicli  tli(^  Treaty  may  i)ossil)ly  be  preserved,  alt houj;h  our  interest  in 
jiiiiiiitaiiiinji'  and  cxecutiuu' its  i)rovisions  is  (;ertaiidy  not  .urcatcr  than 
111!  need  of  this  nation,  which  does  not  seem  to  nu;  to  fully  wei^^h  aud 
liipl»reciate  the  unhappy  consecpu'uces  to  How  from  its  repudiation. 
1  have  the  honor  to  be,  veiv  respetitfidlv,  vour  obedient  servant, 

'  JiOJJT.  C.  .SCIULNCK. 
Hon.  IlAMII.TON  FlSII, 

Si'nrfari/  of  State,  WaNliiii!;ton. 


4»!;i 


t 


LTOX  FISH. 


situation.    Tin 


No.  LM». 

?Ir.  Fish  to  (loKKil  Schciirl'. 
[TclcMiiiin.] 

WASlllN(iT()\,  April  L'7,  1872. 

You  an>  aware  that  neither  in  tlic  Case  ])resented  in  behalf  of  this 

t'lovernnu'ut    at   (icneva    nor   in    the    instructions   to   you    have   the 

'nite<l  States  asked  for  ])e(;uuiary  (lama,!4'es  on  ac(;onnt  of  tint  part  of 

jlie  Alabama  claims  <'alled  the  indirect  losses,  which  the  I'ritish  (Jov- 

irmiient  think  are  not  within  the  i)roviiu'e  of  the  Tribunal      We  think 

It  essential,  however,  that  the  (piestion  be  decided  whether  claims  of 

lliat  nature  can   in  the  future  \w  advanced  a|i>'aiust  the  Tnited  States 

Is  a  neutral  by  (heat  Britain  when   the  latter  is  a  belli;;erent ;  for  if 

■iroat  Britain  is  to  be  at  liberty  when  a  belligerent  to  advanc-e  claims 

•  indirect  losses  or  injuries  a<;aiust  this  country,  then  our  claims  must 

De  maintained  aud  we  must  ])iess  for  comi)ensatiou. 

A  conversation  with  Sir  Edward  Thornton  induces  the  belief  that  the 
British  (Jovernment  may  make  a  jtroposal  to  .\  'u  to  the  effect  that  Her 
lajesty's  (lovernment  enga,ues  and  stipulates  thai.bi  the  future,  shouhl 
^reat  Ihitaiu  be  a  belli;4'erent  ami  this  country  n<.''tral,  and  should 
there  be  any  failure  on  the  i)ai't  of  the  United  States  u  observe  their 
Iciitral  oblij>'ations,  (Ireat  Uritain  will  make  or  advance  Vn  com])laints 
[v  claims  against  the  ITnited  States  by  icasou  or  on  account  i.^'  any  in- 
lii'cct,  renujte,  or  consequential  results  of  such  failure;  aud  .^at,  in 
loiisidcration  of  such  stipulation,  the  United  States  shall  not  pros.-  for 
o  G  A 


m.W- 


■■■•^11 


rvVJ 


m . 


>;:t^! 


.J::>! 


fin 


correspondencb:  res[m:cting  geneva  ariutratiox. 


.1  pocniiiary  awiird  of  dainajic's  luifoic  tlio  (Iciieva  Tril)iiiial  on  account 
oi  tlic  claims  rcspcctiii,;;'  wliicli  (licat  IJritaiii  lias  expressed  the  opiiiioi! 
that  they  are  not  inclnded  In  the  sul»iiMssioii,  namely,  the  tiaiist'ei' oi 
the  Americ-aii  ship[)inii',  increased  insurance,  and  the  i>rolon;;;ation  of 
the  war. 

Should  a  pro]»osal  to  this  elTeet  be  made  by  the   liritisli  (TOveiMnneut. 
the    President  will  assent  to  it,  it  bein.u'  understood  that  there  is  iin 
withdrawal  of  any  part  of  tlie  American  (!ase,  but  an  aji'reement  not  tni 
deniund  damaj^es  on   account  of  the  i-laims  refei'red  to,  leaviu};-  tliel 
Tribunal  to  nnd;e  sueli  expression  of  oi)inion  as  it  may  think  i)roper  nii 
that  (piestion. 

It  is  presumed  that  sucli  an  a.ureemeut  may  l)i'  carried  iuto  elfcet  livl 
au  exchan;>e  of  notes. 


Xo.  21. 
(ieneral  ISclienrl-  to  Mr.  Fii^li. 

['rclcorjim.] 

LoNJ)ON,  April  ;](»,  1871*. 

Your  ISl,  received  last  ni;;ht,  has  been  by  some  accident  Avet  anii| 
blurred,  but  I  hope  to  make  it  all  out  to-<lay.  .A[eantime  your  teleyraiiiU 
■whicli  came  Sunday  nijilit,  was  the  oe(!asion  of  a  strictly  conlJdenti;i:l 
interview  with  (Iranville  yestenhiy.  J le  objected  to  this  (ioverniiiciri 
makiufi'  lirst  nujvement,  but  that  i)oint  is  now  conceded.  They  objd:;! 
to  having  Arbitrator.s  exi)ress  ()i)inion  on  indirect  claims,  when  the  twil 
(jrovernments  ajL;ree  that  they  are  not  to  be  the  subjectof  award.  1| 

After  consideration  by  Cabinet  the  followinj^'  ])ai)er  was  f«iven  me  Iii>;^ 
night  conhdentially  as  the  draught  of  a  possible  communication  to  Um 
made  to  me,  if  the  United  States  have  promised  to  assent  to  it  and  \vi[| 
previously  jtut  Her  ^lajesty's  Governnuuit  in  possession  of  the  terni-i 
of  the  assent : 

"Her  Majesty's   Government   adhere  to   their  view   that   it   is  ii(i:i 
within    the    ])rovince    of    the   Arbitrators    to   consitU'r  or   to   decidi 
upon  the  claims  lor  indirect  losses,  vi/,   the  transfer  of  the  Americii;? 
shipping,  the  increased  prendnms  of  insurain-e,  and  the  prohuigatid   ., 
of  the  war,  aiul  that  consi-quently  the  <!overiiment  of  the  Ignited  Stati-J 
ought  not   to  i)rcss  for  a  consideration  of  such  claims.     They  aie,  liowp 
ever,  ready   to  state  that,  in  the  event  of  the  (lovernnu'ut  of  the  I'liiL 
ted    States   agreeing   that  the  Arbitrators  are  not  to  have  regard,  iilj 
any  award  that  they  may  make,  to  the  above-mentioned  claims,  Ih. 
Majesty's  (loxcrnnu'nt   will,  on   their  ]»art,  agree  that  the  view  wlii.. 
they  have  her»'tofore  presented   of  the  inadmissibility  of  such  claiiii 
shall  still  coutinue  to  l)e  their  ])rinciph»  of  action   and  conduct  in  ;i    , 
like  cases  and   in  similar  circumstan(;es ;  and  that  they  are   ready,  ii  J 
]>ursu;;nce  of  the  recognition  of  such  priucii)le,   to  give   assurance  t  --^ 
the  United  States  that,  if  (5reat  Uritain  should,  at  anytime  hereallti  | 
Ilea  belligerent,  while   tht>  Uiuted  States  is  a  neutral,  claims  of  tli;i 
nature,  iu  similar  eases  ami  sindlar  circumstances,  will   never  be  ini 
vancetl   against  the  United  States,  su(d»  an  assurance  for  the  futtui 
being   recii)rocally   given    by    both    parties.      An    airaugement    smi 
as  is  h?re  skelched  unl  might  be  carried  into  effect  by  an  «'xchangt'i    | 
notes,  which  shall  beeommuidcated  to  and  recorded  by  the  Arbitrators, 

III  submitting  this  draught  of  their  proposal,  I  slnudd  iidorm  you  tli;i' 


COK 

have  iiisis 

iroMi  jtressi 

hove  Mieiit 


Fii»rd  (rrai 
lute  subiniti 

'•  1    have 

J)y.Mr.  Fish 

)ii  the  1st  in 

that  Her  M: 

)ii  which  tin 

Mie  s('o])e  am 

pciiexa.  did 

fi)  coiuply  wi 

)f  the  Unite 

[lie  declarati 

[lie  Md  of  l'\. 

Iiiiiid ;  and  a 

Icr  which  Mi 

;ree  with  .^ 

ngiiiiientativ 

^tood  that,  if 

irom  an  asse 

leniid,  withoi 

Majesty's  (Jo^ 

[ion,  therelbr 

pc  accepted 

Itate  the  viev 


Tlie    I'lvsid 

lleilglit   prop! 

|f-7tli  Aiu'il, 
sdliilion  of 

<•  the  arbitra 
iilmc  ami  tei 

^piil  are  siicl 
ilt^  cjinnot  i 
ithdriiws  an; 

'■'•III  (he  cons' 


ITRATION. 


COKRESPONUENCK    RESPKCTING    GENEVA    ARIUTKATIOX. 


67 


biiiial  on  :iC('()Uiit.| 
'sscd  the  ()i>ini(jii| 
y,  the  ti'iiiist'enJ 
■  ])i()h»iij^at u»u  oil 

tisli  (loxcnmifut.j 
that  there  is  iiJ 
a,iireenieiit  not  tJ 
I  to,  h'avni,i;'  tliJ 
V  think  inopiT  niJ 

it'll  into  el'i'cct  liyi 


,  Ai>rH  ;;0,  1872. 
aeeident  Avet  aiuij 
lie  your  teleyraiiij 
rietly  conli(lenti;i| 
i  this  (ioveinnicii 
lied.    Tliey  ohJ('i| 
inis,  when  the  twul 
tof  award, 
was  <>iven  me  lusij 
iininnieatiou  to  hi 
sent  to  it  and  \vil| 
sion  of  the  teiiiii 


\v   that   it   IS  ii(i!yH)( 


liave  insisted  on  this  lanrfna<;'e,  "  the  United  States  aj^'recinj^'  to  retrain 
I'roin  i»ressin,<i"  for  ('oinpensation  or  for  an,\  pt'cnniary  award  for  the 
ihovf  mentioned  claims." 


^To.  22. 

(rencral  iSclienvl-  to  }fr.  Fish. 
[Tclcuriiiii.] 

London,  ,1^/// 1',  ],S72. 

Liird  (rranviih'  proposes  the  foHowinj;'  as  the  introductory  part  of  the 
lolf  submitted  to  you  by  my  telej>ram  of  the  .'JOtli  ultimo: 

'•  I  liave  hiid  befort^  my  eolleaj^ues  the  disjtatch  addressed  to  you 
n  Mr.  Fish  on  tlie  Kith  ultimo,  of  which  you  furnished  me  with  a  copy 
III  the  1st  instant.  I  infornu'd  you,  in  my  letter  of  the  20th  of  ]\rarch, 
hat  Her  3IaJesty's  Government,  in  communicating  to  you  the  grounds 
lU  which  they  hold  that  the  claims  for  indirect  losses  are  excluded  from 
lie  scope  and  intention  of  the  reference  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at 
ieiu'va.  did  not  wish  to  commence  a  dii>lomatie  controversy,  but  merely 
I)  ((iiniily  with  the  desire  substantially  expressed  by  the  (Jovernment 
,f  the  United  States  to  be  advised  of  the  r<'asons  which  had  prompted 
;lit'  (leclarati(.n  made  by  me  on  behalf  of  Jler  .Majesty's  Government  on 
lie  .'id  of  February.  Her  ^Majesty's  Government  are  still  of  the  same 
liiiiid:  and  although  they  cannot  admit  the  force  of  the  jiartial  rej'oin- 
x'V  which  Ml'.  Fisli  has  made  to  that  statement  of  their  •easons,  they 
gree  with  .Mr.  Fish  in  seeing  no  advantage  in  the  eontinu.tuce  of  an 
rgimientative  discussion  on  the  subject.  It  will,  however,  be  uiuler- 
itood  that,  if  I  do  not  review  the  matter  of  !Mr.  F'ish's  disi»atch,  it  is  not 
from  an  assent  to  his  ]>ositions,  but  from  the  hope  that  a  way  nuiy  be 
fomid,  without  prejudice  to  the  arguments  heretofore  advanced  by  Jler 
^liijcsty's  (iovernment,  to  avoid  further  controversy,  fn  the  full  expecta- 
ioii,  thereh)re,  that  an  arrangement  satisfactory  to  both  countries  will 


accc 


l)ted  by  the  (rovernnuMit   of  the  United   States,   f  proceed  to 


tier  or   to   det'i(l«tati'  the  views  of  JLer  .ALaJesty's  Government 

of  the  Amerii'iit^ 

the  prt»longatioi| 
the  United  StatH 


They  are,  h 


((V 


|iment  of  the  I'li 
It)  have  regaid.  i 
litiiit'tl  claims,  lli 
lit  the  view  wlii,. 
,y  of  such   claiiii' 

id  ctMidiiet  ill  II 
licy  are  reatly,  i 
live  assurance  i 
jiy  time  hereallci 
111,  claims  tif  tier 
Ivill  never  be  in: 
]ce  for  the  fnlui 
Irrangement  siiii 
]»y  an  exchange  i 
the  xVrbitrattiis. 

d  inform  you  tliii: 


No.  2; 


Mr,  Fish  lu  (nncral  StlttKck, 


'['I'llUlMIM.] 


WAsitiN(iToN'.  Mai/  {,  1S72. 


Tlic    I'residciit    regrets   tliat    Her   .Majesty's   (it)vermnent    have    not 

iniight  ]>ropcr  tt)  makt^  the  iMt)posal  mentioned  in  my  t<'legram  to  ytui 
|l'-7lli  April,  wliich  this  GtiM-rnment  hail  Iteeii  leil  tttlittpe  might  allbrtl 

sdhuion  of  the  tlilferiMices  between  the  twt»  Governments  witli  i,^  .itl 
•  tilt'  arbitration  now  pending  under  thi^  Treaty  of  Washington.  'Ihe 
iiliiit'  ami  terms  oi'tlii^  proptisititm  ct)ntained  in  ytnir  telegram  of  .'iOth 
ipiil  are  such  that  it  cannot  justify  his  assent. 

lie  cannot  asseutto  any  proposition  which  by  implication  or  inference 
ritlidraws  any  ])art  of  the  (ilaims,  or  of  tlie('aseof  this  Government, 
I'oiii  the  consideriition  of  the  Tribunal.    The  JJritish  Gov<Mnment  prt>. 


*•  fi 


M 


"I  f 


G8 


C(>UKi;SPONl)EXCE    RKSl'ECTINU    GENEVA    AKIHTRATION. 


l)OS('s  lliiit  the  views  licictoloie  incsciitcd  by  thciii,  that  ccitaiu  of  the 
eliiiiiis  ]»nt  f'oi'tli  by  tlie  riiitcfl  States  are  not  within  tiie  proviinre  ot'tlicl 
Ti'ibmial,  be  contiimed  as  their  priiujiph' of  a(!tii)ii  and  coiidiict,  aiidtliat| 
ill  recoj^iiition  of  siieh  jiriuciple  an  asstifanee  be  reciprocally  /^iviMi  hy 
both  jiarties. 

Tiie  United  States  (h)  not  entertain  tlie  views  tlnis  presented  by  ]Icr 
^Majesty's  (lONeriiinent  and  eaiinot  enter  into  an  assiiranee  on  the  b,isis| 
of  sneh  prineii>le.  Tiie  proi)osal  limits  the  a,!;reenient  of  tiie  iJritisli 
Cioveriinient  to  a  stipulation  not  to  advance  elaiiiis  of  that  iiatur(Mii 
similar  eases  and  similar  eireumstanees.  No  two  eases  are  similar,  ami 
eireiimslanees  similar  to  those  arisin;n-  diiriiin'  the  reltellion  cannot  occiu 
to  (Ireat  JJritain  ;  conseqneiitly  the  terms  of  the  proi)osed  ai;reem('iit! 
ynaraiitee  iiothin,ii,'  to  this  (ioveinment. 

The  ]»roposa!   pre\'ents  any  expression  of  opinion  or  ol'  judj;iiient  hy) 
the  Tribunal    on  the  class  of  claims  referred  to,  and    thus    virtually 
denies  what  this  (loveriimeiit  believes — that  the  Tribunal  has  Jurisdic.j 
tion  over  all  the  claims  which  have  been  put   forth.     I'lidcr  these  cir- 
ciimstances  the  Presi(U'itt  is  compelled  to  adhere  to  the  opinion  that  irl 
is  within  the  -province  of  the  Arbitrators  at  (leiieva  to  (;ousi(h'r  all  the 
claims  and  to  determine  the  liability  of  (l''eat  Di'itain  for  all  the  claiiii.<| 
which  have  been  jtiit  forward  by  the  United  States. 


No.  I'L 


Gfurral  ^<(^hcll<■L^  to  Mr.  Fish, 

[Tcll'J41'Mlll.] 

LoNDox,  Mitji  Ttj  1S71.', 

Your  tele<;'rani  of  yesterday  received  to-day. 

Will   endeavor  to  see  (Jranville  tonijiht  or  early  to-morrow.     Willj 
ui';;e  him  to  modify  his  proposal  in  accordaiu^e  with  your  views.     Wi 
you  examine  it,  includiiin'  introductory  paragraphs  as  _i;iveu  in  my  tel 
"grains  of  April  .'SO  and  .May  .'5,  and,  takinj;-  it  tor  a  basis,  suj^'^i'est  exactly] 
what  modifications  would  make  it  ]»ossibh'  for  the  President  to  assent 
to  it '  Also  j^ive  me  drauiiht  of  such  reply  as  you  would  be  willinj;to  inakc, 
1  am  conlideiit  this  (loveriiment  will  not  aj;ree  to  the  last  para,;;rapli  otj 
your  telej^ram  of  A[)ril  L'T.     They  may  a<;ree  that  if  the  United  Statis 
will  enj;aj;'e  not  to  press  for  awanl  lor  indirect  daina,!;('s,  iiotliinj;'  iiecil 
be  said  about  any  modilication  of  the  ori,Liiiial  Case,  nor  whether  siicli 
a,i;reement   is    a  withdrawal  or  not  a  withdrawal  of  any  part  of  tliiitj 
( )ase.     Kather  than  a,nree  t(»  submit  tin;  indirect  claims  to  tlie  Jud,i>ineiitj 
of  the  Tribunal,  1  appreliend  this  (iovernment,  liacked  by  I'arliameiit] 
would  cease  uejiotiatitiii  and  make  an  absolute  declaration  a,u'ainst  pro 
ct'cdiiin'  with  the  arbitration.     Could  the  President  assent  to  their  olVcij 
if  I  can  <i'et  the  followhij^'  substiliitt^  for  what  1  tele;^ra[)hed  April  .'!(>' 

"  Her  Majesty's  Goveniuieiit  are  now  ready  to  state  that  if  the  Unitcil 
States  will  and  do  aj^ree  not  to  press  tor  a  pecuniary  awai'd  before  tin' 
'i'ribunal  of  Vrbitration  at  (iciieva,on  account  of  claims  for  iiidiicd 
losses  or  da  aji'es,  namely,  the  increased  premiums  of  insurance,  tlaj 
transfer  of  Aiiierican  shippin.L;',  ami  the  iM'olon;;atioii  of  Ihe  war.  Ill 
Her  Majesty's  (iovernment  will  and  do,  ou  their  part,  en;;;!,:^!'  and  sti| 
late  that,  should  (Ireat  P.rilain  at  any  lime  in  the  luture  be  a  iiellif^erciilj 


while  the  United  Stalt 


a  neutral  :  and  should  there  be  aii\ failure  o!i 


TRATION. 

■it  ccrtaiu  of  the 
',  province  of  tin.' 
)ii(luct,  iiiid  tluit  I 
■ocally  ;j;iveii  bvi 

resented  l»,v  Ht'v 
nee  on  tlie  li.isjs| 
t  of  the  JJritisli 
f  that  ii:jtnr(^  in 
are  similar,  and 
ion  cannot  oecuv 
k)S(mI  a.n'reenu'iitl 

of  jn(l.;;'iiient  l>y 
I  tlins  virtnallv! 
nal  has  Jurisdic- 
I'nder  these  cir- 
>,  opiniou  that  it] 
(consider  all  tlii' 
'or  all  the  elaiiiisl 


CORKESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


(59 


t, 


Mint  o,  1872. 


)-)norro\v.     Will 
iir  views.     Will 
iven  in  my  tele- 
siin'^i'est  exactly! 
si(h'nt  to  assent 
wiilinjitomala', 
ist  i)ara,i;rai)h  (ill 
e  I'nited  Statis| 
s,  nothin;;'  iietMl 
or  wiu'ther  snclij 
ny  part  of  tliiitl 
to  the  jnd.n'nuMitl 
hy  Parliament,! 
ion  a.uainst  pni| 
nt  t(»  tluMr  oll'i'ij 
ed  April  .".(t  .' 
It  if  the  IJnitcilj 
ward  be  lore  tlif 
IS  for  indiriTtj 
I'  insurance,  tlii'j 
f  Ihe  war,  tlici 
,H-a,i;c  and  slipiil 
be  a  belli,:;'erciii 
e  anv  lailiire  o:i 


[tlic  i)art  of  the  United  States  to  observe  tlieir  nentral  ol)li,u'ations,  (Ireat 

rjhitain  will  make  or  advance  no  (complaints  or  claims  a,niUMst  tlu^  LTnited 

States  by  reason  or  on  account  of  any  indirect,  remote,  or  conse(|uen- 

Itial  results  of  such  failure.     This  rule,  or  principle,  not  to  advance  or 

{i)ress  complaints  or  (daims  for  indii'cct,  remote,  or  conscfpUMitial  daiu- 

iiiics,  to  l>e  mutually  ai"d  reciprocally  observed  by  both   i)arties  in  the 

future.     The  notes  whieh  aic  e.\c,han,iied  on  this  sid)ject  to  be  presented 

to  the  Tribunal  of  Ai'bitial  ion  ami  entered  on  its  record." 


Xo. 


(ic)tcral  fSchciick  to  Mr.  Fi.sli. 


[Ti-lciiriiiii.] 


London,  Mat/  0,  187l*. 


Had  two  hours''  discussion   with  (Iranville  last  nif;ht.     To-day  he 
hiands  lue,  as  the  result  of  conference  with  his  colleaj;ues,  the  I'oUow- 
inji  aniended  ]tro])osal.     Compare  it  with  their  former  offer  and  infoi'ii 

in 
hno( 


e  how  far  you  can  assent  or  must  object.     I  told  him  1  thou;nht  it  not 
litied  so  as  to  be  vet  satisfa(;torv,  but  aji'reed  to  submit  it  to  vou. 


'•  ller  .Majesty's (Jo\ernment  areieady  to  eiij-a.i'e  that,  in  the  event  of 
the  (iovernment  of  the  United  States a;4reeinj;'  that  the  Arbit'    (ors  nvv 

hint  to  have  regard,  in  any  award  that  they  nmy  nndce,  to  the  claims  for 
indirect  losses,  namely,  tlie  transfer  of  the  American  shipping',  the  in- 
(■reased   premiums  of  insurance,  and   the  ])rolongati(»n  of  the  war.  Her 

piajesty's  Government  will,  on  tiieir  part,  ajuree  that  the  view  which 
they  have  hei'ctofore  presented  of  such  claims  shall  be  their  principle  of 
fiituie  action  ami  con<luct;  and  they  are  ready,  in  i)nrsuanceof  the  rec- 
()}jiiition  of  such  iuinc!i)le,  to  .t>i\'e  assurance  to  the  United  States  that 
if  (ireat  Dritain  should  at  any  tinu'  hereafter  be  a  bellig'erent  while  the 

[united  States  are  neutral,  (Ireat  Jbitain  will  never  advance  any  claims 
inconsistent  with  that  jirinciple,  such  an  enj^ajicment  for  the  future  be- 

jinji"  reciprocally  juixcn  by  both  parties;  the  notes  which  are  exchanged 

mn  this  subject  to  l)e  presented  to  the  Tribunal  of  .Arbitration  and  eii- 

Itored  on  its  recoids."' 

In  the  i)refatory  i)arag'rai>hs  he   strikes  out,  at  my  suggestion,  the 

hvords  "without  prejudice  to  the  arguments  ln'retofore  ad\anced  Ity  ller 

|3raiesty's  (loveiiMuent." 
Jveceived  at  l.L'O  a.  m. 


No.  L't;. 

Mr.  FInIi  to  (iciuriil  tSchmck. 

['I'i'l('i;r;iiii.  J 

^\■,\sIll^•(i  roN.  .!/'(// ('..  1S71.'. 

Your  telegram  re<'ei\«'d  during  the  night. 

An  agreement  which  is  to  bind  the  future  action  of  this  (ioxcrument 
I  can  be  made  only  by  treaty,  and  would  reipiire  the  assent  of  the  Senate. 

Slioidd  thcTiibunal  decide  that  a  nation  is  n(»t  responsible^  in  jiecu- 
niary  damages  ler  the  "oiisequential  residls  of  ;i   failni'c  to  observe  its 


t^ 

HBuHm' 

i| 

r 

■'1  *<"'  ■''BnK 

'hJm 

-.>^ 


-.^i 


70 


(JOKRESPOXDEXCE    RESJ'ECTING    GENEVA    AHHITRVTIOX, 


•i 


I  \( 


■(•■'i'f*''  1  ■; 


'"'^  ■.':$■ 


iicutrjil  ()l)li,yati()ii.s,  sdcli  (V'ci.sioii  could  not  fail  to  be  i  '^'  i'J<m1  as-  sii. 
tliiif?  lite  qin'«tioM  between  the  two  (iovcrnmeiits  in  the  I'uUire. 

It"  tlie  IJrnish  (loveniinciit  desire  to  ope/i  iieji'otiatioiiis  to  df)'i('l\ 
treaty  llie  extent  of  liability  for  eoiiseriiieiitial  damages  re sultin';  Imi 
a  failure  of  observanee  of  neutral  obli<;ations,  the  rresidenr  v  <'|  ciiic. 
fully  consider  any  ])roi>osals  in  that  direction. 


Xo.  u;. 

Mr.  n.sli  to  (icncViiJ  >^clic)i<'J:. 
['!'fl(',L;r;u)i.] 

WAsiiiXfJTON,  ]\Iaij  7,  1872. 

The  President  earnestly  desires  to  do  everything'  consistent  with  lii>, 
<bitv  to  the  country  and  with  the  f>reat  interests  to  the  future  of  botli' 
Goverinnents,  and  to  the  iirineiples  so  ini])ortant  to  civilization  as  aie 
involved  in  the  Treaty,  to  avoid  {lie  i)ossibility  of  its  failure.  This  (lovi 
ernnient  is  of  opinion  that  the  submission  ol'  what  are  called  the  indircnl 
(claims  is  within  the  intent  of  the  Treaty,  and  that  the  consideration  (iil 
those  claims  is  within  the  i)rovince  ot  the  Tribunal.  The  President  aloinl 
has  not  the  oower  to  chan,ue  or  alter  tlu!  terms  or  the  ]trinciples  ot  ;is 
treaty,  lie  is  of  rhe  oj)inion  that  the  suji';;estion  expressed  in  my  iiij 
struction  of  l'7th  Ai>ril  weid  to  tlu^  extent  of  his  autlutrity,  actiuj;'  witlil 
outthe  assent  of  the  Senate.  The  jnoposal  sulnnitted  in  your  tele;nraii;i 
of  last  evt'oiu};'  is  based  upcni  a  theory  anta,L;onistic  to  this  prin('ii)le.    .' 

The  President  is  anxious  to  exhaust  all  jnoper  elforts  tv  vc;:ch  a  set 
tlement  of  the  important  cpu'stions  and  the  vast  interests  to  twi  Stato. 
submitted  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration,  if  it  can  be  doiu'  without  tli> 
sacrilicc  of  a  prin('ii>le  ami  consistently  with  the  dii;nity  ami  the  hoiim 
of  the  Govern nu'ut. 

He  will,  therefore,  be  willinii'  to  c<>nsider,  and.  il'  p'tSMn't ,  v,  iii  vf.escii' 
for  tne  consideration  of  the  8i'nate,  any  new  article  ,,  hi  h  nr.v  be  ]m 
posed  by  the  P>iitish  (lovernnient.  which,  while  it  '«'!iic8  the  i)rincii)K 
involved  in  the  pi'esentation  of  what  are  called  the  ii»ti)''ct  claims,  wii: 
renu^ve  the  diflerenees  which  have  arisen  iK'tween  the  f ',m)  (lONCiiimer; 
in  their  constructions  of  the  Tr<*aty. 


No.  L'S. 


(iciicidl  .srhcticJc  to  Mr.  FLsli. 

['I'rli'.l^rillll— l^.\'«.it«-t.] 

London.  Mtiy  7,  is;:.', 

Your  telc.nram  (»!'  yester(hiy  was  receixcd  this  nuM'nini,. 

Alter  some  discussion,  liord  l\usscll's  nM)tion  was  posipitned  yesKi 
<lay  to  lu'xt  Momlay,  on  Lord  (lran\ille's  i)romise  that  on  oi'  beftu'c  Hi! 
day  he  would  prodiu-e  the  correspondence  or  unike  a  stUi'Mneid  as  to  In 
position  of  (he  m'i;otiations  m)\  ';'oin.i:- (m.  This  was  cndy  acceded  : 
upon  a  distinct  assurance  bein;;'  ,.,  sen  that  tiu'  (iovernment  would  ii' 
retract  its  [)ositi(m,  that  the  claims  for  indiicct  damajics  ai'c  not  witlii 


L'OKI 

jic  in!  en  tiu 
S(!:-«  i<'  if  i'< 
|U(iM<lay. 
rill   be  dec 
rcarly,  if  n 
)(sirable 
la\('  a  deci 
Iccuniary  d 
rai    <tbli',;,r 
li  terms  to 
jDMsent  to 
llllionjih  w 
feel   cont 
latinnal  res 
Tlu'  al)ov 
|nd  have  hi. - 
\  you  do  no 
intro'.crsy, 
OHclude  to  I 

ion  in  my  t( 

* 


Ait  tlu'  ]>n 
,  piobably 
|ainely,  the 
•ve  to  be 
pn\ietion  t 
llaiins  to  wl 
Init  the  Uni 
livorable  .'v 
The  jiropo! 
liew  wliich  t 
•tioa  and  ci 
iplc,  but  an 
pplieable  o 
luy  ([lU's', iot 
liniiient  lioh 
9f  I  lie  Tribu 
|iii<'erely   de 
i(lo|ii    the    I 

^)C!lt. 

'  ill  my  iele 
|jid  will  not, 

oi;.-!  ruction 
puiiunt  ]iei'; 

f  the  Treat 

llclll  of  t''(! 


UTRVTIOX, 


COKKESPONDEN'CE    KHSPEL'TIXG    GENEVA    AKIUTRATIOX. 


71 


m 


e  1  '^^  ;'ai;ii.  as  si'|. 
lie  I'utuiv. 
tioiis  to  <loi'')fi  bv 
i'os  re 'iiilf  JM';  i'vm 
I'osideui  v\  i'\  care 


*J 


ON,  :Mt(ij  7,  1S7L'. 

insistent  with  lii>j 
Mio  fiitiiro  of  botli" 
civiliziitioii  as  are! 
liliuo.  This  (iov! 
j'alli'd  the  indim'ij 
It'  consideration  oil 
lie  l'resi(U'iit  aloiitj 
tile  ]>iiii(M|)U's  of  ill 
xpi'esst'd  in  my  iiii 
ority,  aetiii*«'  witlil 
1  ill  your  teleuniiiii 
)  tiiis  priiK'ijile. 
»rts  to  I'ejM'ii  a  si'tj 
!us  to  t\v(  Stati'sj 
done  wit  hold  tbj 
ity  and  tlie  hoiiut! 

ih-,  will  pvestM 

U    ll   II.  .V-  bo    ])1H 

; ^rs  tlie  i)riiici|ili 
lir'i't  chuiiis,  wi 
o  (ioveinnic! 


N.  May  7,  lS7:j. 

111,. 

iMstponed  yestci 
on  or  itel'ore  ilii 
al'-ineid  ;is  to  In- 
■;  only  acceded  i^ 
■nineiit  ^\(tIlld  ii' 
I's  lire  not  witiii 


jic  iiileiitioii  and  si^ope  of  the  reference.  To  tliis  J  am  sure  they  will 
idi.t  re  if  no  a};reeim'iit  or  adjiistineut  be  made  between  now  aiul  ii(>xt 

hciday.  1  have  little  doubt  that  they  will  make  a  declaration  which 
/ill  be  decisive  a.yainst  submission  to  arbitration,  and  Avill  have  the 
Icarly,  if  not  (|uite,  unaiiimous  sui)i)ort  of  botli  Houses  of  rarliainent. 

)csirable  and  iii'portant  a.s  it  is  to  both  parties  and  to  all  nations  to 
hnc  a  decision  of  the  Arbitrators,  that  a  nation  is  not  responsible  in 
Iccuiiiaiy  daiiiajies  for  coiise<iuential  lesuUs  of  failure  lo  observe  neti- 

I'al   obli.i;!itions,  1  see  no  chance  of  ,i;ettin,n'  this  (lovernment  to  aj^ree 
tciiiis  to  a  submission  so  as  to  ol)tain  sucli  decision ;  they  will   not 

iiist'iit  to  unite  in  askiii,n-  the  Tribunal  for  an  o])inion  on  the  question, 
lltlionjih  we  assure  them  that  wi'  expect,  aii<l  they  have  every  reason 
feel  eontident,  that  that  o])inion  would  be  against  aflirmiii.i^'  such 
latioiial  responsibility. 

The  aliove  jiortion  of  this  telefi'ram  I   have  read  to  Lord  (iraiiville, 

[lid  have  his  admission  that  it  is  a  correct  statement.     ]\Iay  I  hope  that 

you  do  not  mean  to  decide  that  no  other  way  can  be  found  out  of  the 

lontrovcrsy,  and  therefore  the  arbitration  and  Treaty  must  fail,  you  will 

)iicliidc  to  instruct  me  explicitly  on  their  jiroposals  comiminicated  to 
joii  in  my  telegrams  of  the  oth  and  (!th  .' 


Xo.  L'!». 

Mr.  Fi.-^/i  'o  (IcncyiiJ  Sclii-ncl\ 

[TclcMrjiiii.] 

^N'ASIIINGTON,  M((tj  S,  187-. 
I  All  the  ]uoposilioiis  made  liy  the  Ibitish  (ioveriiment  involve  covert- 
I',  jirobably  without  design,  v,  hat  this  CJovernmeiit  cannot  agree  to, 
lamely,  the  withdrawal  from  1h«^  province  of  the  Tribunal  what  we  be- 
li've  to  be  eiitii'ely  within  their  ei>iii[)cteiiCii.  i  need  not  repeat  our 
loiiv!cti<)n  thai  the  Arbitudors  have  the  ri};ht  lo  decide  whether  the 
llaiiiis  to  whi'th  (ireat  Britain  (d))ects  are  or  are  not  adnussible,  and 
jliiit  [ho  I'liited  States  will  oc  content  to  abide  their  decision,  whether 
Inorablc   u'  adverse  to  that  class  ol  claims, 

J  The  ])roposition  of  the  Ibitish  Ciovernment  is  iipini  the  basis  that  the 
lirw  wiiicli  they  ha\e  heretofore  jr.esented  shall  be  a  ]»rinciple  of  future 
|<'tioii  and  coiiiluct.  The\ie\v  which  they  have  ])rescmed  is  not  a  ]»rin- 
|il>ic,  but  an  (»i)iiiion  .;s  to  the  -  onstriu'tion  of  a  specilic  treaty,  and  is 
lliplicable  only  to  one  pendin;  lilference  on  an  incidental  and  teinpo- 
lliry  iiuestion,  and  c  ninot  be  a  princiiile  of  fuiiire  action.  Tliistiov- 
Iriiiiient  holds  a  diriH-tly  o'.tposite  view  with  re,i;ard  to  the  c(nii|>('teiice 
(f  tlie 'I'riliunal  to  consider  tlie  validity  of  the  claims,  and,  although 
Biiccicly  desirous  of  coming  to  an  honorabh;  understanding,  cannot 
|dopi  the  r.ritisli  view,  or  make  it  the  basis  of  a  reciprocal  engage- 
lent 


til    1 1  I  • 

111  my  ielegram  of  yesterday   i  explained  that  the  I'resulent  cannot, 

finl  will  not,  withdraw  any  par',  ol   what  has  been  submitted  within  his 

")!;>!  met  ion  of  t!ie  intent  and  spirit  otthe  Treal\.     If  the  jJritish  (iov- 

niaeiit  persist  in  their  denuind,  the   responsibility  ol  whatever  failure 

!'  thv'  Treaty  a>a,\  ensue  must  rest  with  them,  as  you  will  have  ad\  ised 

leiii  of  t''«!  imi>ossil)ility,  resnlling  as  well  Irom  the  constitutional  ina- 


f 

3  ' 


"'i'Sfi 


I.  t 


72 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


COR 


.1 


bility  of  the  Presidont  to  Avitlidraw  wliat  tliis  (Jovorninont  is  of()i)iiiin 
has  been  subiiuttod  Avithiii  the  intent  and  meaniiis'  of  the  Tieatv. , 
from  his  unwiilin^ness  to  eoin])i'oniise  the  ri<>hts  and  the  dij;iiity  of  ti 
Goveininen'i  by  yiehlinj>-  to  a  demand  not  founded  on  rij^ht  or  siistiiiin 
by  any  valid  eonstruetion  of  tlie  Treaty. 

He  liopes,  however,  tliat  tiie  British  (Jovernment  may  see  the  way  t> 
maintain  tlie  Treaty  iu  the  sn,s>f>estion  of  a  new  article,  as  nientioneilii 
my  tele^vani  of  yesterday.  Should  they  not  ado[)t  this  sujijjcstion,  tli 
iuferenee  will  be  almost  unavoidable  that  they  have  deliberately  dctn 
mined  to  abroj^ate  the  Treaty.  If,  however,  they  ado))t  the  suiij^estioii 
you  may  say  that  the  i)robal>ility  is  that  Conjiiess  wdl  adjourn  ahon 
the  latter  part  of  this  month.  Time  may  be  saved,  therefore,  if  ncj;! 
tiations  on  this  point  should  be  eondiu-ted  here  rather  than  in  Loiiddi 
If  they  desire  sueh  negotiations,  it  may  be  advisable  to  siive  time  tli, 
they  give  instructions  to  their  minister  here. 

You  will  keep  me  advised  as  to  the  jirobable  action  of  the  Ibiti.v 
(Jovernment,  so  that  the  l*resident  may  (•ominunicate  the  corresi)ond(iiiv 
to  Con<;ress  on  ^foiulay,  in  case  the  British  (Jovernment  intends  i 
break  the  Treatv. 


il);mi>'e  of 
Will  not  ;;'o 
IkikI  (Jran 
eoiisiitutioi 
»illiiiU'  to 
lilt.' 

jl  aske<l 
nc.  that 
It  he  dec] 
teased  imi 
isatisfact 
iJIis  liOn 
^re  as  fol 
"  I  carefii 
nvs  and  i 
take  an  ni 
told  hill 


No.  30. 

General  SoJiencJi  to  Mr.  Fish, 

[Tolc,i!,iaiii.] 

London,  Mayd,  1ST2. 

Had  interviews  with  (Jranville  yesterday  and  last  even injj'.  ('abiin 
\ouix  in  session.  Instead  of  ])roposin,i;-  new  article  to  Treaty,  tin; 
prel'er  intenihan^e  of  notes,  and  are  willing'  to  further  modify  tlici 
note.  I  shall  tell  Lord  (Jran  ille  this  moridns'  that  in  your  teleji'raiii  n 
April  -17  you  went  as  far  as  is  possible  to  }io  without  concurrence  v 
Senate. 

Just  re(!eived  your  lonu,-  telej^jram  of  yestenhty,  which  is  boiii; 
deciphered.  Will  receive  and  forward  no  offer  until  I  know  wlia 
it  contains. 


iLord  (!i:il 
fu  oil  the  (j 
('•  They  wii 

bitrators, 
|y  award  t 
promise 
)iild  be  CO 

lited  Sta1 
Hbiinal. 


K  . 


Xo  .")L 

Ciencral  Svhciick  In  ^[r.  Fish. 

[T.'lo^rjiin.] 

London,  M<()/  !>,  187l'. 
Li  a  long'  interview  Avith  L«»rd  (Jranville,  this  evening,  1  full 
])resented  and  urged  the  reviews  and  jiositions  (!ontained  in  \w 
telegram  of  yestertlay.  I  liii<l  this  (Jovernment  makes  a  gi'eat  ai 
apparently  insupt'rable  objection  to  the  adoption  of  a.  new  articli 
on  the  groiuid  that  the  language  describing  consc(pu'ntial  <huiia,;:i 
must  necessarily  be  so  broad  that  it  w.dld  ])robabiy  commit  iidi 
(Jovernments  beyonil  what  they  would  either  of  them  wish  to  1* 
bound.  They  prefer  an  interchange  of  notes,  because  by  that  forii 
they  can  narrow  the  agreement  so  as  to  relate  only  to  th(>  actual  poiiii 
or  subjects   of  dilfereiice.     I    have    stated  decidedly  as  to   any   iiitc: 


MI.okI  (Jrai 
wH('grai)h  yc 
iki\t  he  wish 

Sill  of  what 
?v  have  t 
rtof  Mr. 
ftiie  begiu: 
tual  unwil 
itlie  fiitui 
Jnands  of 


IlilTUATION. 

iiiiiont  is  of  opinio; 
:;•  of  the  Ticatv.;,. 
I  tiio  (lij^nity  of  tli. 
I  ri<>'lit  or  sustiiiiici 

may  see  tlio  way  t. 
'le,  as  niontioiit'di' 
;liis  suft'ji'cstion,  tli. 
(Icliberar^'ly  dctci 
lo))t  tlic  sn,ij<;i'sti()ii 
will  adjourn  aboir 
,  tlioroforo,  if  ii(>;;i 
vv  than  in  LoikIhii 
0  to  save  time  tlia 

ction  of  the  1  Iritis'. 
the  (;orres|)0M(lcniv 
Miiineiit   intends  \ 


CORKKSPONDENCK    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


7r, 


l.mao  of  notes,  that  the  rresi(h'nt,  without  tlie  assent  of  the  Sein>t(\ 
not  '^i)  l)eyond   the  suti'ji'estiiui  made   in  your  telej;rain   of  Ajtril  27. 

11(1  (Iranviile  se(!ms  to  thiidc  that,  so  far  as  the  dillicidty  ibr  want  of 
Jnstitntional  i)ower  is  concerned,  the  l*resi(h'nt  inij^ht  jxMhaps  be 
lillin.n'  t(»  submit  notes  to  tiu'  Senate  for  tlieir  advice.     Would  he  do 

lat.'" 

I  aslced  Lord  (Iranvillc.as  yon  instructed  me,  to  aj^ree,  in  orcb'r  to  save 
lie.  that  ne,ii'otiation  on  this  jioint  may  be  condu<;ted  at  Wasliinnton, 
it  lie  declines.  It  wouhl  relieve  nu;  from  a  painful  responsii)ility,  in- 
leased  immeasurably  by  haviiiji' toc(»rres])ond  throujih  tlie  diflicult  and 
isatisfactory  medium  of  the  teU'f>Tai)h. 

[jlis  iiordship's  hist  wor<ls,  after  more  than  two  lionrs' conversation, 
Mc  as  tbllows : 

["I  carefidly  avoid  anythinj>-  like  menace;  but  in  consequence  of  the 
nvs  and  information  you  have  i>resented  to  me  yesterday  and  to-chiy, 
take  an  unfavorable  view  of  thechaiu-es  of  any  settlement." 
fj  told  him  1  was  <>etti>ig  to  be  of  the  same  mind. 


No.  :V2. 
(iciicral  Srheitcl:  /<>  Mr.  F!sh. 


^^ 


DON,  May  9,  1872. 

teveninji'.     Cabiin 

e   to   Treaty,  tiic; 

rther  modify   tlici 

in  your  telejirani  >< 

)ut  cimcurrenci'  i 

y,    \\lnch    is   boiii. 
mtil  1    know  wlia: 


[TfU'^Tiuii.] 

London,  .1/^^// !%  JS72 

[]iOnl   (;ian\ille  jiropost's  to  modify  his  anu-nded  note,  I  telej;raphcd 
Vi  on  the  (Itli,  by  substitutinj;' : 

|'"Tiiey  will  not  brin.n'  ibr  consideration  the  indirect  claims  bel'ore  the 
bitrators,"'  lor  the  words :  ''The  ^Arbitrators  are  not  to  have  reyard,  in 
|y  award  they  may  make,  to  the  claims  for  indirect  hisses."' 

promised  lum  J  wouhl  submit  the  clianjic  to  yon,  but  tlioui^iit  it 
Duld  be  considered  more  objectionable  than  betbre,  inasmuch  as  the 
^litcd  States  insist  that  those  claims  are  now  rightfully  befori?  the 
Hbiinal. 


>  1 


)ON,  Mdi/  !>,  1872. 

eveninji',  I  full; 
contained  in  yoii: 
nakes  a  ji'reat  ;iii 

of  a  new  article 
Mpieitiial  (huiin;:^ 
lably  commit  hni 

them    wish    to  1 

I  use  by  that   forii 

:o  th<»  actual  poini' 

,•  as  to  any  iiiti: 


No.  :v.',. 
(rowral  *S'(7/('«rA'  /o  Mr.  Fifilt. 

[Tcl(";;riMil.] 

liONDON,  Mdi/  lb,  J 872. 
Lord  (iranville  lias  this  moment  sent  a  messaii'c  recpiesliiif''  me  to 
|e^rai)]i  yon  immediately  that  a  cabinet  will  be  held  this  morniii<4',  and 
It  lie  wislu's  me  to  meet  him  atterwards.  This  hioks  like  reconsidcra- 
m  of  what  he  said  yesterday.  1  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
the\  have,  two  reasons  for  their  conduct  :  One,  an  unwillinji'iie.ss  on  the 
pfti  I  (if  ^Ir.  (iladstone  to  seem  to  retract  the  extreme  i)osition  he  took 
at  llic  be;iinniii<;'  as  to  the  int<'rpretation  of  the  Treaty ;  the  other,  an 

fual  iinwilliiifiness  to  adopt  any  rule  to  limit  claims  ai^ainst  neutrals 
the  future,  their  only  object  beinn'  to  ;j;et  rid  of  a    portion  of  tin^ 
d*]ii;iiids  of  the  United  istates. 


l^i 


(  r 


74  COKKESPONDKN'CE    KESPKCTIXG    GKNEVA    AHHITHATIOX. 

^'().  ;;k 

(ifiirrtil  ASrlicjirl:  i<>  Mr.  Fluli. 
['rcli'j,riiiii,J 

].(>M)().\,  May  10,  ISTJ. 

I.(>i'<l  (<i':iii\  illc  ii  (('W  iiiiimtcs  siiuM'  broiii^lit  t»»  uw.  in  ]m'is(>ii  tlif 
Ibllowiii;^  (Iiiiii^lit  (ti'  an  article  wliicli,  if  the  (iovciiiiiu'iil ol'tlie  UiiittMl 
States  tliiiik  lit  to  adopt,  will  be  accepted  by  Her  ^Majesty's  (iovei  luneiit. 
J  made  no  coninient  on  it,  but  said  I  would  telegraph  it  to  von  innjiedi- 
ately: 

"Whereas  the  Government  of  Her  ]5ritaunie  INFaJesty  hascontendi'd 
in    the   re<'ent    corresi)ondence   with   the    (Jovernment    of  tlu^   I'nitcil 
States  as  follows,  nanudy  :  That  such   indirect  claims  as  those  lor  tlie 
national  losses  stated  in  the  (Jas(;  ]»resented,  on  the  part  of  tlu^  (.loveni| 
ment  ol"  the  United  States,  to  the  Tribunal  of  .\rbitration.  at  (ieneva.tu 
have  been  sustained  in  the  loss  in  the  transfer  of  the  Amei  ican  commci- 
eial  marine  to  the  J5ritish  IIiil;:  the  enhanced  payments  of  insurane<';  the 
])rolon,uation  of  the  war,  and  the  addition  of  a  huiie  sum  to  the  <;ost  of, 
the  war  and  tin;  supi>ressi()n  of  the  rebellion — firstly,  Avere  not  ineludodj 
in  i'act  in  the  Treaty  of  \Vashinj;ton,  and  further,  and  secondly,  shouM 
not  be  admitted  in  princiiile  as  inrowiny  out  of  the  acts  committed  by  ]r,\\- 
tieular  Aessels,  alle^^cd  to  have  been  enabled  to  commit   depi'edatioiis 
u])on  the  sliipi»in,i; of  a  belli,i;'erent,  by  reason  of  such  a  want  of  duedili- 
.nt'iice  in  the  jiertbrniance  of  neutral  oblifi'ations  as  that   which   is  im- 
puted by  the  United  States  to  Oreat  Jbitain;  ami 

"Wheieas  the  (lovernnu'nt  ol' Jler  Ibitannic  Majesty  has  also  declared 
that  the  principle  involved  in  th<^  secoml  of  the  contentious,  lu'reiidu-- 
fore  set  forth,  will  y,uide  their  comluct  in  future;  and 

"Whereas  the  I'resident  of  the  United  States,  while  adherin^i'  to 
his  contention  that  the  said  claims  were  included  in  the  Tieaty,  adopts 
tor  the  future  the  ]»iinciple  contained  in  the  secon<l  ofthe  said  contentions, 
so  far  as  to  declaic  that  it  sill  hereafter  j^uide  the  (!ondiu't  of  the  (lov- 
ernment  of  tln^  United  StiUes,  and  the  two  countries  are  therefore  af^reedi 
in  this  respect : 

"Jn  consideration  tlMreot'the  President  ofthe  United  States,  by  aiid| 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  thereof,  consents  that  he  wi 
make  no  claim  on  the  ]iart  of  the  United   States,  in  respect  of  indirect  | 
losses  as  aforesaid,  before  the  Tribunal  of  ^Vrbitration,  at  CJeneva." 


>' 


O.   .).*. 


(lOK.ntJ  SrIiiiicJc  to  Mr.  Fish. 
[i;.\  tract.] 

No.  iiL*4.|  LEciAJ'ioN  Ol'  THE  United  States, 

London,  Mai/  11,  1872.     (lleceived  ^U\y  27.) 
Silj :  AVhen  1  received  last  eveninin'  fiom  Lord  (iranville  the  (lraui>ht  ot'l 
the  new  article  which  is  ])roi»osea  by  Her  Majesty's  (lovernment  as  ii| 
suitplement  to  the  Treaty  of  AVashinmton,  i  hastened  to  communicate  it 
to  you  by  teleiiraph.     This,  w  itli  the  labor  of  carefully  preparinj^-  it  to  bo 
transmitted  in  ei]»hei',  nuide  it  impossibh^  to  furnish  in  time  for  the  mailj 
t)f  today,  eoi>ies  of  the  ]>apers,  less  imi)ortant  in  their  character,  whicl 


IKATIOX. 


COKKK.SFONDKNCl':    UE.SPIX'TLN'O    GENEVA    AKBITKATION. 


75 


'■I 


Mai/  10,  ISTl.'. 
1^  ill  i><'is(»ii  tlaj 
•ii(  oltlic  IJiiitod! 
.v's  (lovciiiiiu'iit. 

to  you  iiiuiicdi- 

y  liascontciuU'il 
of  the  United  I 
as  those  for  tlii' 
t  of  tiic-  Uoveiiil 
)n,at  (jeiicva,  t»i| 
loiicaii  coimiici- 
)f  iiisiiriiiu'c;  the 
nil  to  the  <M)st  ofj 
'10  not  iiuthidpdj 
sccoiidly,  slioiiM 
)iiiiiiitti'(l  by  ]);ii- 
lit   (h'prcdatioiis! 
want  of  due  dili- 
at   whicli   is  im- 

has  also  <loelan'd 


Jjicc(»iiiii;inic(l  that  iliaiijiht.     These  a(,'coiii])aiiyiii.u'  pajiers  consist  of  two 
[iMiti'S  with   tlieir  i'es[>eetive   iiiehisiires,  of  all  of  which  J  send  copies 

lllliW. 

Tile  lii'st  is  a  note  of  the  lOlli  instant,  addressed  to  me  by  Lord  (Iran- 
Iville.  ii'capitulatin;;'  in  a  j;eiiei'al  and  coinpendions  way  what  had  re- 
Iceiitly  passed  lieiween  us,  and  conclndin;;  with  the  information  that 
lillKinuh  tliey  tiiink  it  heloiiys  to  the  (lovernment  of  the  Tnited  States 
|to  fiiiiiie  the  sniijicsted  Article,  yet,  in  onh'i'  to  meet  our  wishes  and  to 
L;ivc  any  inconvenient  thlay.  they  would  transmit  a  dian;;htof  an  Article, 
Iwliicli  if  the  (lovernment  of  the  United  States  tliinlc  lit  to  a(h)i)t  will  ho, 
iiccei)ted  by  Her  Majesty's  (loverniueiit.  Acconipaiiyiii,i>'  this  note  and 
|ilMiidcd  to  it  ai'C  a  copy  of  the  drait.uht  or  memorandnm.  in  relation  to  n 
|]»ro|iose(l  exchan^i'e  of  notes  on  the  snbjec-t,  which  Mascomnmiii(!ated  to 
liiie  oil  the  0th  instant,  and  a  coi»y  of  a  memorandum  which  he  made  of 
lone  of  our  se\-eral  iiitervie\  s,  beinj;'  tiiat  of  the  .stli  instant,  when  I  coin- 
limiiiicaled  to  him  the  substance  of  youi  telejiiani  of  the  Ttli.  and  iii- 
|fniiiie(l  him  that  the  President  woidd  bt^  willin,ii  to  consider,  and  if  pos- 
[sible  would  ineseiit  to  the  Senate,  any  new  Artich^  which  mi.;;lit  be  pro- 
Iposcd  by  the  j'.rilish  (ioverniiU'iit, 

The  second  is  ihe  brief  note  from  Lord  (iranville,  also  of  tlu^  10th 
liiistant,  with  which  he  transmit  ted  the  draiiiiht  of  the  Article  referred  toiii 
lliis  lirst. 

But  the  draught  which  he  inclosed  was  not  in  fact  and  precisely,  in 
Iteriiis,  the  one  which  I  have  tele^rai>hed  to  you.  After  it  had  lieen 
Icopied  and  i)repared  to  be  seiit  in  cipher.  Lord  'I'enterden  <;ame  in  haste 
Ito  the  Legation  from  Lord  (iranville  to  recall  ir,  and  substituted  the 
liiineiided  form  which  1  Ibrwarded  to  you.  I  ju'cserve  and  send  you  a 
copy  of  the  drauulit  which  was  withdraw  ii,  as  well  as  of  the  one  which  was 


itions,  hereiiilR'-^ljj,,.,|]y  submitted,   simply  as  niarkin;^'  a  step  in    the   ]>ro]nress  of  the 
liieji'otiation. 

As  these  two  notes,  with  their  inclosures,  were  of  the  same  date,  and 
Idelivered  at  the  same  time,  1  acknowled^^cd  the  icceipt  of  the  whole 
Itoji'etiier,  statiii,u'  that  I  would  immediately  transmit  the  Article  to  you 
Jhy  telejiiaph,  and  that  1  did  not  doiilit  it  would  be  considered  at  once 
Iby  my  (lovernment,  and  the  result  of  that  consideration  communicated 
Ito  me  throiijih  the  same  medium,  and  with  as  little  delay  as  ])ossil)le 
land  ill  the  same  friendly  si)irit  in  which  the  ]U()posal  of  ller  ^NLijesty's 


ile   adheriii'^'  to  I 
e  Treaty,  a«loi)ls| 
said  contentions, 
let  of  the  (.lovl 
therefore  agreed 

States,  by  and] 
'iits  that  he  will 
>cct  of  indiret't 
it  (leneva." 


ICiovernment   ha<l   bet'ii    offered.     A  copy   of  my    note  of  acknowledg- 
liiient  is  inclosed  lierew  ith. 

This  eveninj;  I  have  received  from  Lord  (Iranville  a  note,  for  the  tirst 
Itiiiie  formally  acknowledjiing  the  receipt  of  your  dispatch  to  me  of  the 
Jldtli  of  April,  a  copy  of  which  1  had  cominuiiicate(i  to  him  on  the  Lst 
■instant.  This  note,  altliou.uh  dated  on  the  Otli,  has  obviously  Just  been 
Iwritten.  and  is  now  delivered  to  me  antedated  in  order  to  keep  up  the 
|clironoIoj>ical  se(pience  and  lo,u,ical  conuectiiui  of  the  corres[)oiuleuce.    J 

|traiisinit  lierewith  a  copy  of  it. 

*  #  *  *  *  #  # 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  vour  obedii'iit  servant. 


i:s, 

ived  Mi\y  27.) 
e  the  drauii'ht  ofj 
loverninent  as  ill 
communicate  itl 
'eparinji'it  to  kj 
ime  for  the  iiiai' 
haracter,  wliiil" 


IJOBT.  (\  SCIIENCK. 


Hon.  IlAMir/rox  Fisii, 


tSccrctari/  of  tStafc. 


SlK 


[  liiclosuic  I  ill  Xi).  I!.").] 

]C(irl  (JraniiUe  to  (ivneml  ISchencl: 

FouEKiN  On-iCK,  May  10,  1872. 
Ill  I'eidyiii,:.^'  to  the  communication  which  you  made  to  me  on  the 


■'i 


II  i  M 


,,' 

X 

nm^Hnj 

.X 

1 

V 

.   f 

J^^f^^HK: 

^" 

■^imK 

^^K 

''. 

w^^ 

;:ftif|«TOB 

ffl^^W 

■'^'i-^» 

um 

W.^M 

f^;-7  m 

■■!'      ';      W 

; -j   ;|v^'  1 

'^■'F'' 

m 

^'m 

*'.S 

it-. ,  i\  UK 

'  m 


i 


k; 


COKRKSPONUKNCK    RKSFMCCTINCJ    GKMCVA    AlililTKATION. 


■v-^j'-V;;''.' 


Stli  instant,  I   IliiiiU   it  wvW   to  iccniiitiiliitc  tlic  recent  eoniinnnientions 
which  I  liiive  hail  with  you  on  the  snltjcct  of  tlie  ail)iti'ation  (»m  tlie  Al 
al)aina  claims. 

Oil  thi'  until  (^{'  A]>\\\  yoii  made  an  int'oiinai  «'omnniiiication  to  nic. 
which  yon  snl)scqnentiy  rendered  oHicial.  iiilbrmiiifi'  nie  that  a  proposal 
made  by  this  country  »ii  a  certain  basis  would  be  accei)tal»le.  Her 
.Majesty's  (ioverniuent  thereupon  decided  to  assume  the  initiative,  and 
they  i'ramed  upon  tliat  basis,  as  they  innh'rstood  it,  tiie  ac(;oiiipanyiii;,' 
draught  with  a  view  to  an  exchaiifi'e  of  notes. 

This  draujiht,  which  had  Ix'cii  subjecte(l  to  various  alterations  to  briii'r 
it  more  closely  in  conrormity  with  tiie  views  which  you  had  «'xprosse(l. 
and  to  make  it,  as  they  Itelieved,  more  acce|)table  to  the  (loveriiment  ol 
the  United  States,  was  delivered  to  you  on  the  (ith  instant. 

Oil  theSth  instant  you  coniinunicated  to  nie  a  tele<;'rapiiic  mossaiic 
apparently  in  rei)ly  to  this  drauj^ht,  from  your  Oovernment.  of  wliicii  I 
iiuhlc  th(^  accompanyiii<;'  m(>moraiidum. 

Her  Majesty's  (Jovernment  are  by  this  tele,uram  invited  to  jnojtose  an 
article  in  addition  to  or  in  amendment  of  the  Treaty  of  the  Stli  of  ]Mav. 
1S71. 

Tlu^  Ti'caty  is,  in  the  Judfiinent  of  Her  ^Nfajesty's  (loveriMnent,  clear 
and  snilicient,  and  excludes  from  the  arbitration  the  claims  for  indirect 
losses  advanced  by  the  Government  of  the  United  [States.  It  is  there- 
tort!  dillicnlt  tor  Her  Majesty's  (Jovernment  to  take  the  initiative  iu  the 
manner  the  Unitid  Htates  have  proposed.  , 

They  think  that  it  l)elon<>s  to  the  (Jovernment  of  the  United  States, 
to  whos(>  fri<'ndly  sniiji'cstions  the  eommnnications  which  have  taken 
])lace  since  the  date  of  Mi'.  Fish's  reply  to  my  letter  of  tlu^  -bth  of 
March  have  been  due,  to  frame  the  snji<;ested  aiticle;  yet,  iu  onler  to 
meet  their  wishes  and  to  save  any  inconvenient  delay,  1  will  transmit  to 
you  a  drauLjht  of  an  articU'  w  liicli,if  the  (loveriiment  of  the  United  States 
think  iit  to  adopt,  will  be  accepted  by  Her  Majesty's  (io\-eriiment. 

1  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  yonr  most 
obedient,  humble  scj'vaut, 

(iRAXVlLLE. 


•1    IT,  '■';■■ 
.1    .    ji      ■ 


-:^^ 


[Inilosiiic  '2  ill  \(i.  I).").] 

Mciiiorandum. 

The  United  States  (lovernment  claim,  and  insist  upon  their  claim,  that, 
under  the  Treaty,  (claims  for  tlu;  indirect  losses  which  have  been  ))ut  for- 
ward are  admissible  to  be  considered  by  the  Arbitrators,  althonyli 
they  do  not  expect,  and  never  have  exiieeted,  a  i)ecuniary  award  et 
damai^cs  ibr  such  claims.  (Jreat  llritain  denies  that  such  claims  eoiiie 
within  the  scope  or  province  of  th(^  Arbitrators  to  consider  or  decide 
upon. 

The  arj;umeiitative  discussion  has  ended,  leaving  each  i)arty  adheriiij;' 
to  their  jiosition. 

The  I'nited  States  (iovernnieiit,  in  this  condition  of  things,  have  been 
willing  to  accept  a  ])roposal  from  (ireat  lUitaiu  that  in  consideration  of 
not  i)ressing  for  a  i)(>cniiiaiy  award  on  thes(!  indirect  claims,  (Jreat  l>rit- 
aiii  would  on  her  i»art  agree  to  engage  not  to  advance  in  the  future  in 
any  case,  when  she  should  be  a  lielligerent  and  the  United  States  a  neu- 
tral, such  claims  Ibr  indirect  damages  as  are  put  forwai'd  by  the  United 
States  (Jovernment  in   the  case  presente<l  ou   their  behalf  to  the  Tribu- 


Sir:  1  hav 
article  refern 

1  have  tlie 
obedient,  hui 

(Jeiieral  Sc 


COURKSPOXDKN'CK    llKSI'HCTINd    (iKNi:VA    AlllJITRATIOX. 


77 


))iiiiuiiiici)tioiis 
ion  (»M  tlic  Al 

licatioii  to  inc. 
li;ir  !i  proposal 
•cptiihlc.  Ilcr 
initiative,  iiiid 
acu'onipiiii.viii;; 

ations  to  briny 

\;u\  cxpressi'il. 

(lovciiiiiient  (il 

It. 

ipliic  luossniic 

Mit,  of  wiiicii  1 

I  to  ])iopo.so  ail 
he  Sth  of  May.  | 

cninuMit,  elcai 
ins  for  indirect 
^.     It  is  tlierc-  i 
iiitiative  in  tlic  1 

United   States.  ^ 
L'h  have  taken    J 
of  the  liOth  of  i 
vet,  in  orch'r  to  | 
vill  transmit  tc  || 

I'nited  States  i 

eninient. 

sir,  Your  most 

lANVlLLE. 


iial  of  Arbitration  at  (leneva,  and  to  make  that  I'eeipiocaliy  the  nde  for 
Hie  fiitare.  (Ireat  IJritaiii  is  understood  to  object  to  this  on  tiie  j;roiind 
thai  an  ajireemeiit  not  to  ])ress  for  eoinpensation  for  these  indirect 
claims  is  not  siiflicieiit,  because  the  Ail»iliators  in  that  case  miyht,  them- 
selves, i»roceed  to  take  them  into  coiisitU'iation  and  make  them  tin'  sub- 
ject of  all  award.  And,  therefore,  (Jreat  Ibitain  lias  oiiiv  liceii  viUiii;;' 
to  cslablisli  the  rule  in  re;;ard  to  indirect  dama;^t's  on  condition  that  tlie 
American  part  of  the  Case  at  (leneva  which  puts  forward  tinse  particu- 
lar chiiins  shoidd  be  entirely  withihawii  from  the  eonsideiation  of  the 
Arltitratois.  'riie  I'resith'iit  holds  that  lie  hasjiower  to  jiive  iiisiinctions 
ill  rej^ard  t(»  the  nianancmeiit  of  the  Case  before  the  Ari)itratois,  and 
llicrcfore  ci)uld  direct  that  these  eiaiins  should  not  hr  pre.ssnl  for  an 
award.  JJnt  inasiniudi  as  the  (Jovernmeut  of  the  United  States  hold 
that  tlie  claims  are  admissible  to  be  considered  by  \]  Arbitialors  iiiidcr 
llic  I'leaty,  he  cannot  withdraw  tlu'  claims  as  not  ix'iii,^'  ri,!;htfully  put 
torward  without  its  beinii;"  such  an  alteration  of  the  terms  and  prineiph'S 
(if  the  'I'leaty  as  is  inconsistent  with  his  uiider>;taiidiiij;"  of  it,  and  tlu^ 
interpretation  which  has  been  juit  upon  it  l)y  his  ( iovernmeiit. 

Tlie  'I'reaty  il.M'lf,  however,  may  be  amended  in  sueh  a  manner  as  to 
accomplish  the  object  and  remove  all  ditfereiices  between  tin*  I  wo  (!ov- 
ciiiMiciits  arisiii<>'  out  of  their  dilfereiit  interpretations  of  its  i)rovisioiis. 

(leiicral  Scheni'k  is  therefore^  authorized  to  state  that  the  President 
will  be  willing;'  to  consider,  and,  if  possible,  will  present  for  the  consid- 
eration of  tli<!  Senate,  any  new  article  fur  the  Treaty  which  may  be  ])ro- 
posed  by  the  llritish  (JoveriinuMit,  which,  while  it  settles  the  jirinciple 
involved  in  the  presentation  of  what  are  called  the  indirect  claims,  will 
remove  the  ditferenees  which  have  arisen  between  the  two  (iovernmeiits 
ill  the  coiisideratiou  of  the  Treaty. 

The  President  is  earnestly  desirous  to  do  everythiii};-  ctuisisteiit  with 
his  duty  and  with  the  great  interest  for  the  future  of  both  countries, 
and  to  preserve  i)riiu'i|)les,  so  important  to  civilization  as  he  thinks  art; 
involved  in  the  Treaty,  of  whicli  he  is  anxious  to  prevent  the  failure, 
and  to  this  end  he  is  willin;;'  to  exhaust  all  ])roper  efforts  as  fai'  as  eau 
be  done  without  abaiidonin.Li'  any  ]»rinciple  and  consistently  with  the 
honor  and  (liynitv  of  both  (ioveriinients. 


ir  claim,  that, 

been  put  for- 

tors,  althou^ili 

liary  award  el 

il  claims  come 

;i(ler  or  deeidi' 

larty  adheriiiu 

11, us,  have  been 
insideration  nl 
lis,  (Jreat  IJrit- 
the  future  in 
1  States  a  neii- 
by  the  United 
■  to  the  Tribii- 


[  l"iiclii>iii'>'  :')  in  Xii.  :l."i.] 

J'Jarl  GranriUc  to  (Jcnrntl  Scliotch'. 

5:  Foinncx  Oi-fick,  .l/^f/y  10,  187i\ 

Siu:  1  have  the  honor  to  transmit  to  you  herewith  the  *drau,i;ht  of  an 
article  referred  to  in  my  juecedin^'  note  of  this  day's  date. 

1  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sii',  your  most 
nltcdieiit,  humble  servant, 

GPtAyVlLLE. 

General  Sciiex<!k,  d'c,  ilx'.,  ttv. 


*  For  (Iraiiiilif  of  the  arti 


SI'l'  Xi>.  '■>  1. 


*%» 


^> 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-S) 


/> 


^  .5i^4 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


If  1^  IS^ 

0^  Ki2  11122 
S  lit  ■" 


Is 


2.0 


i4 

U    ill  1.6 


V] 


■^^f 


^-J 


'^1^V# 


7 


Photographic 

Sdences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  87!2-4S03 


^ 


iff 


V 


% 


o 


.V 


4^ 


"^Jk 


c,\ 


-L 


V 


<^ 


h  •■:■',;.■ 


""■T'.  *  ; 


Vr'^''?-:- 


;i.!'-;":!f .' 


78         CORRESPOXDKNCE    RESl'KCTING    GENEVA    ARI51TRATI0N. 

[Inclosiirc  4  in  No.  li.'i.] 

General  Schcnclx  to  J'Jarl  Granville.    ..,,,''     , 

'  Legatio>m)f  THE  United  States, 

London,  May  JO,  1871*. 

3Iv  Loill):  1  liiivc  tlu!  lioiior  to  iU;kii()\vl(',t;c  the  reeiupt,  at  4  o'clockl 
}>.  ni.  today,  of  yonv  note  of  tlii-  date,  in  which  you  take  oc(;asioii  tdf 
recapitulat*^  some  recent  eoinimuiication.s  we  Iiavo  Iiad  with  ea(!li  otlici 
on  the  subjeet  of  the  Arbitration  on  tlie  Ahibania  chains,  und  to  state] 
brierty,  accordinji'  to  your  nnderstandinji'  and  note  of  tlie  transactions, 
what  occurred  snbseciuently  in  consequence  of  those  coniniunicatioiisJ 
You  refer  to  and  furnish  nie  at  tiie  same  time  with  copies  of  a  draught  oti 
a  ])ro[)osed  note;  delivered  to  uie  on  the  (Jth  instant,  and  your  nieiiid  [ 
randuin  of  a  conversation  1  had  with  you  afterwards,  at  an  interview 
ou  the  Sth   instant,  in  which  it  was  suyf,'ested  to  you  to  propose  aiil 
article  in  a«ldition  to.  or  in  amendment  of,  the  Treaty  of  the  8th  oil 
May,  1871. 

This  su. Honest  ion  of  a  Treaty  stipulation,  you  will  renu'mber,  was  madtl 
in  conse(iuence  of  the  failuie  to  obtain  from  you  any  draught  of  a  note 
which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  was  in 
conformity  with  the  proposal  which  Mr.  Fish  telegraphed  me  on  tluf 
li7th  of  April,  as  I  informed  you  he  was  led  to  expect  would  be  made. 

Your  Lordship  ]»roceeds  to  say  that  the  Treaty  is  in  tlie  judgment  oil 
Her  Majesty's  Governjnent  clear  and  suttlcient,  and  excludes  from  the [ 
Arbitration  tl»e  claims  for  indirect  losses  advanced  by  the  (lovernmeiitl 
of  the  United  States,  and  that  it  is  therefore  <litlHcult  for  her  Majesty'," 
Government  to  take  the  initiative  in  the  numner  the  United  States  havel 
proposed ;  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  think  it  belongs  to  the  Gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States,  to  whose  friendly  suggestion  the  comma 
nications  which  have  taken  [)lace  since  the  date  of  Mr.  Fish's  reply  toj 
your  letter  of  the  L*Oth  of  March  have  been  due,  to  frame  the  suggested! 
article;  but  yet,  in  order  to  meet  their  wishes  and  to  save  any  ir.  onveii 
lent  delay  you  will  transmit  to  me  a  draught  of  an  article,  which,  ifl 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  think  tit  to  a<lopt,  willl)e  accepted  j 
by  IJer  Majesty's  Government. 

.Vnd  1  have  also  to  acknowledge  the  receii)t  of  another  note  of  this  I 
ilate  from  Your  Lordship,  which  was  delivered  to  me  at  the  same  tiiiic.j 
in<'losing  the  draught  of  an  article  in  the  i>receding  one  referred  to. 

I  will  hasten  to  communicate  immediately  by  telegraph  this  dranglit] 
to  my  (Joveriunent;  and  I  doubt  not  it  will  be  considered  at  once,  and 
the  result  of  that  (consideration  communicated  to  nw  through  the  saiiic 
medium,  iind  with  as  little  delay  as  jtossible,  and  in  the  same  friendly | 
s])irit  in  which  your  proi)osal  is  offered. 

1  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  my  Lord,  Y'oiu  I 
Lordshii>"s  most  obedient  servant, 

KOIJT.  C.  SCIIKNCK. 


[IiK'losii'c  Ti  ill  No.  ;!'».] 

Earl  Granville  to  General  ISeheneh: 

FoKEiGN  Oi  rc'E,  May  0, 1872. 
Sir:  I  have  the   honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  Mr.   Fish's  I 
dispatch  of  the  Kith  April,  which  you  communicated  to  me  on  the  1st 
instant.    I  abstain  from  addressing  any  observations  to  you  on  the 


RIUTRATION. 


COURESPONDENCE    UESPECriNG   GEN'EVA    ARBITK.VnOX. 


79 


iTi-yo  Stati:s, 
'Ion,  Mill/  JO,  187L'. 
reeiiipl,  at  4  o'clock  | 
oil  take  oc<;asi(ni  tn 
had  with  each  otlicil 
claims,  ijid  to  statif 
ot  the  transactions,! 
se  com  iimiiicat ions, 
opies  of  a  draught  (it| 
lit,  and  your  menid 


Iciior  of'thiit  dispatch  pendin.ii'  the  result  of  the  conimunications  which 
\i\\v  now  |)assing  between  us,  and  which  it  is  the  earnest  hope  of  Her 
piitji'sty's  tioverninent  may  lead  to  a  satisfactory  settlement  of  the 
[(liK'stions  under  discussion  between  our  two  liovernments. 

1  have  tiie  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most 
lolicdient,  humble  servant, 

GJtANVlLLE. 

(iKNKUAL  SCIIEXCIC,  d'C,  dr.,  d'C. 


Xo.  30. 


The  following"  dispatch   was  published   in   the  supplement  to   the 
rds,  at  an  interviowHLoiidoii  (lazette,  i\Iay  17,  and  commnnicated,  in  a(!cordance  witii  in- 

stnu'tions  from  his  (lovernment,  by  Sir  Edward  Thornton  in  a   note 
Idati'd  ]day  31,  187:i.     (deceived  June  1.) 


you  to  projiose  an  I 
'reaty  of  the  8th  oil 


•emember,  was  madt'i 
y  draught  of  a  note 
iiited  States,  was  in 
graphed  lue  on  the  I 
'(!t  would  be  made. 
5  in  the  Judgment  ofj 
d  excludes  from  the 
by  the  (lovernment 
lit  for  her  Majesty's [ 
United  States  have 
belongs  to  the  Govj 
■gestion  the  comniii 

Mr.  Fish's  reply  to  I 
rame  the  suggested  I 

save  any  ii;  on  veil 
in  article,  which,  ill 
>pt,  will  be  accepted 

Mother  note  of  tliis| 
e  at  the  same  tiiiic. 
one  referred  to. 
graph  this  draught | 
idered  at  once,  and 
through  the  sainr 
the  same  friemllv 

ion,  my  Lord,  Your  I 

('.  SCIIKNCK. 


c'E,  May  0,  1871]. 
ipt  of  Mr.   Fish's 
I  to  me  on  the  1st  I 
lis  to  you  on  tlic| 


IJarl  GranrUk  to  Sir  E.  Thornton.* 

Foreign  Office,  May  13,  1871.'. 

Siu  :  Tier  ^Majesty's  Government  have  refrained  from  continuing  an 
laigmnentative  discussion  with  the  (xovernmeut  of  the  United  States 
Jiipon  the  scope  and  intention  of  the  Articles  in  the  Treaty  of  Washing- 
|toii  relating  to  the  Arbitration  on  the  "Alabama  claims." 

There  Jire,  however,  some  passages  in  Mi\  Fish's  despatch  on  this 

Lsiibject  of  the  IGth  ultimo,  ujton  which  it  seems  desirable  that,  for  your 

()wn  information,  and  for  use  in  any  future  communications  with  the 

(iovernmeiit  of  the  United  States,  you  should  bo  put  in  possession  of 

[the  views  of  Uer  Majesty's  Government. 

In  the  tir'  c  place,  Mr.  Fish  takes  exception  to  the  assertion  in  my 
[letter  of  the  20th  of  March,  that  although  it  is  true  that  in  some  of  the 
earlier  letters  of  Mr.  Adams,  vague  suggestions  were  made  as  to  possible 
liabilities  of  this  country,  extending  beyond  the  direct  claims  of  Ameri- 
can citizens  for  specilic  losses  arising  from  the  capture  of  their  vessels 
by  the  "Alabama,"  "  Florida,"  "  Shenandoah,"  and  "Georgia,"  no  claims 
were  ever  defined  or  formulated,  and  certainly  none  were  ever  described 
l>y  the  phrase  "Alabama  claims,"  except  these  direct  claims  of  Amer- 
lican  citizens. 

3Ir.  Fish  states  that  I  cannot  be  supposed  to  intend  more  than  to 
Isiiy  that  the  "hums  for  indirect  or  national  losses  and  injuries  were  not 
"formulated"  by  the  United  States  Government,  and  theainount  thereof 
jst't  forth  in  detail  and  as  a  specilic  demand. 

I  di<l  not,  however,  coiihne  myself  to  saying  that  no  claims  of  this 
I  nature  were  ever  defined  or  formulated,  but  ad<led  that  no  such  claims 
had  ever  been  "described"  as  "Alabama  claims." 

31r.  Fish  admits  that  the  claims  for  indirect  or  national  losses  were 
I  not  formulated  or  defined,  but  proceeds  to  cite  various  passages  in  ihe 
|('oiTespoiidence  in  which  lie  considers  that  tiiey  were  brought  forward. 
He  does  not  mention  one  instance  in  which  they  weie  described  as  "Ala- 
bama claims." 

The  fact  is  that,  throughout  the  correspondence,  the  representations 
nuKJe  by  the  United  States  Government  respecting  the  actual  claims 
lor  injuries  sustained  by  American  citizens  from  the  depredations  of  the 
"Alabama"  and  other cruizers  Avere  interspersed  with  complaints  of  the 

*  Fur  le^tly  ul'  Mr.  FImL  tu  tliiu  cuuiuiunit'iitiuii,  hoo  No.  57. 


:  1' 


:i .. 


i 


s-w:''it!! 


■tP 


mm 


80 


CORRESPONDKNCE    llESPECTINa    GENEVA   Alt»ITRA.TION. 


.snpi)()s('(l  i)r('iniiture  rccogiiitiou  of  tlic,  bcllijiercnt  lijihts  of  the  ConiViij 
(inito  iStiitcs  by  the  issue  of  Her  ^Majesty's  I'roelaiuatioii  of  Xeiitr:ihtj,f 
and  of  the  ju'oceeilinys  of  bU>cka<le-rnniiers. 

Nearly  all  the  i)assa<^es  eited  by  Mr.  Fish  will  be  found,  when  rca.lj 
with  their  context,  to  have  reference  to  these  complaints,  and  to  the  inj 
definite  su;i»f;estions  of  liability  founded  on  them.  On  the  other  haiidl 
on  turniiif*'  to  the  ^Memorandum,  inclosed  in  my  lettiu' of  the  2()tli  ol 
March,  it  is  apparent  that  the  ]»hrnse  "  Alabanui  claims ''has  uniforinlvj 
been  used  to  distin<;uish  tiie  actual  claims  on  account  of  the  acts  conJ 
mitted  by  the  "Alabama"  atul  the  other  cruizers  from  these  coml 
])laints  of  the  "attitude"  assumed  hy  (Jreat  IJritain. 

^fr.  Fish  lays  sreat  stress  on  the  statement  in  ]\Ir.  Adams's  letter  of  tliJ 
UOth  of  November,  ]S(i2,  that  he  was  instructed  to  "solicit  redress  loJ 
the  natlonul  and  private  injuries  already  thus  sustained."    The  inJuvicM 
ihuH  sustained  were,  as  appears  l)y  the  inclosures  in  ^Fr.  .V(bims:'s  lettcr.j 
the  (h'struction  of  the  "  Ocmuljice"  and  other  vessels  by  the  "Alabainii" 
As  already  i)ointed  out  in  the  Memorandum,  Mr.  Adams  spoke  merely  iii| 
the  "  de])redations  committed  on  the  hi^h  seas  ui>on  meichant-vesse!*^" 
by  the  "Alabama,"  and  of  "  the  ri^ht  of  reclamation  of  tlieGovernnieiil 
of  the  United  S'.ates  for  the  grievous  danmge  done  to  the  property  oil 
their  citizens,"  and  referred  to  the  Claims  Commission  under  the  Treatvl 
of  17!)4  as  a  precedent  for  awarding  compensation.   There  is  not  a  Avonl 
in  the  letter  to  suggest  any  indirect  or  constructive  claims. 

In  the  despatch  of  the  IDth  of  February,  1SU3,  INIr.  Seward,  in  a  sinil 
ilar  numner,  uses  the  term  "its  claims"  with  obvious  reference  to  tiifj 
claims  pat  forward  by  the  United  States  on  behalf  of  American  citil 
zens;  those,  indeed,  being  the  only  claims  that  liad  been  indicated  iiil 
the  corres[)ondence  between  Mr.  Adams  and  Lord  llussell  to  which  \\ 
was  alluding. 

1  must  remark  that  this  despatch  of  the  IDth  of  Febrimry,  1809,  wa>| 
not  communicated  to  the  British  Government. 

]\Ir.  Fish  has  omitted  some  important  words  in  the  next  passa;,'f| 
which  he  adduces  from  Ijord  llusseirs  despatch  to  Lord  Lyons  on  tlitl 
L*7th  of  March,  1801}. 

The  despatch  gives  an  account  of  a  conversation  with  ]Mr.  AdaiiisJ 
at  the  close  of  which  Lord  liussell  said  that  it  was  hi.,  belief"  that  if  alii 
the  assistance  given  to  the  Federals  by  British  ,'iubjects  and  Britisilif 
numitions  of  war  were  weighed  against  similar  aid  given  to  theContedl 
crates,  the  balance  would  be  greatly  in  favour  of  the  Federals. 

"Mr.  Adams  totally  denied  this  proposition.  But  above  all,  he  saiill 
there  is  a  uumifest  consi)ira(!y  in  this  country,  of  which  the  ConfederatJ 
Tioan  is  an  additional  proof,  to  ])roduce  a  state  of  exasperation  in  AiiieiT 
iea,  and  thus  bring  on  a  war  with  Great  liritain  with  a  view  to  aid  tiitl 
Coidi-derate  cause,  and  secure  a  monopoly  of  the  trade  of  the  Southeiii 
States,  whose  independence  these  conspirators  hope  to  establish  Inj 
these  illegal  and  unjust  measures." 

Mr.  Fish  omits  the  words  "of  which  the  Confederate  Loan  is  an  addil 
tional  i)roof,"  which,  taken  with  the  context,  show  that  Mr.  Adams  \va> 
then  speaking,  not  of  the  case  of  the  "Alabama,"  but  of  the  assistaiiw 
in  nu>ney  aiid  materials  which  he  considered  was  im])roperly  renderdj 
to  the  Confederate  States  by  blockade-running  and  (he  Cotton  Loan. 

]Mr.  Adams's  letters  of  the  7th  of  April  and  20th  of  ^May,  and  Lonii 
IkUssell's  letter  of  the  1th  of  ^Nlay,  18(i,j,  are  (iommented  on  in  tlnl 
Memorandum,  I'art  II,  and  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  make  any  hiij 
tlier  observations  on  them,  as  Mr.  Fisii  docs  not  reply  to  those  whicli " 
have  already  olfered.  Whatever  nia.\  have  l)een  the  i)urpose  to  n! 
([uire   indemnilication,   no   claim   was  presented  or  nolilied,  tind  tin] 


l'H'van< 


e"Al 

The  < 

Her 

le  A  PI 

1  tears 

vision 

DM.    B( 

cordim 

;.,  ''  i  t 
inn  of 
Itions  o 
inis  fo 
iiiiiis  ai 


bn 


V 


I  There 
snbini 
.  connei 
llior  cla 
.'tober, 
lajesty's 
Viipensa 
lostion 
|1  have 
le  claims 
liins." 
ritaiu  fo 
niarin 


AUHITRATION. 


COURESPONDENCE  RESPECTING  GENEVA  ARIUTKATION. 


81 


lijihts  of  tlie  CoiilHl 
nation  of  Xt'iitrulityJ 

)P  found,  when  roajl 
)laints,  juul  to  the  iuj 

On  the  other  liaml, 
letter  of  the  2()tli  oil 
hiinis ''  has  unifoiiiihj 
lint  of  the  acts  coiiil 
t'l'S  from  these  ooinj 
ain. 

.  A(hiins\s  h'tter  of  tliJ 
)  "  s()li(!it  redress  lotl 
ained."  The  inJuvuM 
n  :Mr.  AdaniJ-'s  k'ttor.l 
'Is  by  the  "Ahibainal 
(htnis  spoke  merely  ni 
on  merchant- vessel*;"! 
;)n  of  theGovernnieiil 
10  to  the  property  iitl 
iion  under  the  Treatvl 

There  is  not  a  word 
e  claims. 

]\Ir.  Seward,  in  a  si  ml 
vious  reference  to  tli(| 
alf  of  American  citi| 
lad  been  indicated 
L  liussell  to  which  L4 

f  February,  1809,  waJ 

in  the  next  passage! 
o  Lord  Lyons  on  tliJ 

)n   with  Mr.  Adauis| 
hi.,  belief  "that  if  ill 
iubjects  and  liritijsli 
<>iven  to  theConfed| 
he  Federals, 
lit  above  all,  he  saidl 
hich  the  Confederate! 
xasperatiou  in  Aiiioi  f 
ith  a  view  to  aid  tlie| 
•ade  of  the  Southeni 
ope  to  establish  Ini 

jate  Loan  is  an  adilij 
Ithat  Mr.  Adams  \vii>f 
)ut  of  the  assistaiR'ij 
|im])roi)erly  rendemlj 
It  he  Cotton  Loan. 
Ill  of  ^May,  and  Lon!! 
jiimenteil  on  in  tint 
Ime  to  make  any  liiij 
Ipiy  to  those  whiclii 
It  lie  purpose  to  ivj 
[r   not  died,  and  tli<| 


kevanc's  of  which  coeiplaint  was  made  were  in  noway  ideutitied  with 
Le  "Alabama  claims." 

iTlie  despatch  of  the  14th  of  February,  18(50,  was  not  cjinmunicated 

Her  i\Iajesty's  Government ;  but,  on  referring  to  the  3rd  volume  of 

le  Appendix  to  the  American  Case,  p.  028,  in  which  it  is  given,  it 

)poars  to  refer  to  the  possibility  of  fresh  negotiations  in  regard  to  a 

ivision  of  tlie  Neutrality  Laws  and  to  Lord  Kussell's  refusal  ot  arbitra- 

Lii.   IJotii  tiiese  subjects  are  referred  to  at  page  025,  and  the  despatch 

Lording'y  concludes,  after  t'.ie  paragraph  quoted  by  Mr.  Fish,  bj'  say- 

\ff,  "  1  think  that  the  country  would  be  unanimous  in  declining  every 

iriu  of  negotiation  that  should  have  in  view  merely  prospective  regu- 

Itioiis  of  national  intercourse,  so  long  as  the  justice  of  our  existing 

liiius  for  indemnity  is  denied  by  Iler  Majesty's  (Tovernment,  and  those 

faiius  are  refused  to  be  made  subject  of  friendly  but  impartial  examina- 

)ii.'" 

[There  can  be  no  pretence  that  the  claims  which  Lord  Russell  refused 

sid)niit  to  arbitration  extended  to  indirect  claims.  The  proposal  arose 

connection  with  "a  claim  for  the  destruction  of  the  ship  '2^ora'  and 

[her  claims  of  the  same  kind,"  (see  Mr.  Adams's  letter  of  the  23rd  of 

•tober,  1SG3,)  and  Lord  ilussell,  in   rejdy  to  it,  stated  ihat  Her 

lajesty's  Government  must  decline  "either  to  make  reparation  and 

liiipeiisation  for  the  captures  made  hy  the  '■Alahama,^  or  to  refer  the 

Wstion  to  any  foreign  State." 

il  have  already  pointed  out  that  no  importance  can  be  attached  to 

[e  claims  of  private  citizens  being  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Seward  5is  "our 

lims."    The  "claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  against  Great 

ritain  for  damages,  &c.,  by  means  of  depredations  upon  our  commer- 

niarine  committed  on  the  high  seas  hy  the  'Sumter,'  the  'Alabama,' 

|e  'Florida,'  the  'Shenandoah,'  &c.,"  of  which  a  summary  was  annexed 

I  the  despatch  from  jMr.  Seward  to  IMr.  Adams,  of  the  27th  of  August, 

|0(),  communicated  to  Lord  Stanley,  and  which  are  utldenitibly  private 

dins,  are  mentioned  in  that  despatch  as  "  the  claims  upon  which  we 

Isist,"  and  "  our  claims." 

[The  next  desjiatch  referred  to,  that  from  jMr.  Seward  to  Mr,  Adams, 

the  2nd  of  May,  Avas  likewise  not  communicated  to  Her  Majesty's 

)veniment.    The  context  clearly  shows  that  the  " injuries"  from  "  the 

ht  unfriendly  or  wrongful  proceeding"  referred  to  the  "concession  of 

tlligerency."    JMr.  Seward,  in  a  preceding  paragraph,  says,  "  I  feel  quite 

Ltain  that  the  balance  of  faults  has  been  on  the  side  of  Great  Britain. 

jrst,  the  concession  of  belligerency  ought  not  to  have  been  made; 

|coii(l,u])oii  our  earnest  appeals  it  ought  to  have  been  earlier  rescinded." 

le  despatch  goes  on  to  state  the  conviction  of  the  American  people 

lat  "tiio  proceedings  of  the  British  Government  in  recognizing  the  Con- 

levacy  were  not  merely  unfriendly  and  ungenerous,  but  entirely  unjust." 

[Ill  another  part  of  JMr.  Fish's  despatch  complaints  (not  claims)  are 

meed  as  having  been  made  bv  INFr.  Adams  on  the  30th  of  December, 

)0J,  Uth  and  2'7th  of  March,  1803,  and  28th  of  April. 

ITlie  "acts"  complained  of  in  the  lirst  extract  will  be  seen,  on  reading 

le  entire  passage,  to  have  been  that  "  vessels  owned  by  Ilritish  subjects 

live  bi'iMi  and  are  yet  in  the  constant  jnactice  of  departing  from  British 

frts  laden  with  contraband  of  war  and  many  other  commodities,  with 

le  intent  to  brealv  the  blockade  and  to  ])ro('rastiiiate  the  war." 

jThc  despatch  of  the  14th  of  ^March,  1S03,  refers  to  certain   inter- 

|]>tc(l  corresiiondence  relating  to  the  proceedings  and  sup))Osed  inten- 

)iis  of  (/oni'edciate  agents,  blocK'ade  rniiiiers,  and  to  thi^  Cotton  Loan. 

0  Vt  a 


II 


i\ 


82 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


'  -ti ..  ^  ■• 


-■  -t  - 


:^-<i'vJ- 


The  complaint  on  the  27th  of  March,  as  I  have  already  explainoj 
also  referred  to  the  Cottou  Loan  and  to  these  proceedings  of  CouiederaiJ 
agents. 

The  desjiatcli  of  the  28tli  of  April  begins,  "  I  am  instructed  to  iuionl 
your  Lordship  that  the  (loverimient  of  the  United  States  has  heard  witi 
surprise  and  regret  of  the  negotiation  of  a  loan  in  this  city,"  and  prJ 
ceeds  to  state  that  "  this  transaction  must  bring  to  an  end  all  conceJ 
sions,  of  whatever  form,  that  may  have  been  heretofore  made  for  initij 
gating  or  allevinting  the  rigors  of  the  blockade  in  regard  to  the  ship 
ment  of  cottoi, , '  and  concludes,  "I  am  sure  that  it  is  with  thegreatestl 
reluctance  it"  |tlie  United  States  Government]  "flnds  itself  compelleJ 
by  the  oFensivti  acts  of  apparently  irresponsible  parties,  bent  upon  carl 
rying  on  hostilities  under  the  shelter  of  neutrality,  to  restrict  rathel 
than  to  expand  the  avenues  of  legitimate  trade.  The  responsibility  m 
f/m' [i.e.,  for  this  restriction] 'must  rest  m.ainly  upon  those  who,  foJ 
motives  best  known  to  themselves,  have  laboured  and  continue  to  laboi) 
so  strenuously  and  eft'ectually  to  furnish  the  means  for  the  protractioi| 
of  the  struggle." 

I  have  reviewed  the  passages  cited  by  Mr.  Fish  in  support  of  his  argiii 
ment,  that  the  "Alabama  claims"  included,  other  claims  than  those  loif 
the  actual  losses  of  American  citizens,  in  order  to  show  how  little  sup 
port  they  attbrd  to  it;  but  tliis  is  almost  superfluous,  as  a  conclusive! 
answer  is  aflbrded  by  the  very  volume  of  despatches  from  which  Mr| 
Fish  has  taken  these  extracts. 

3Ir.  Keverdy  Johnson,  in  a  despatch  to  Mr.  Seward  dated  Febriiar\| 
17,  1869,  (|>age  707,)  containing  a  report  of  his  negotiations  witii  He 
Majesty's  Government,  states,  "  I  hear  that  in  some  quarters  objectioiiil 
are  made  to  the  Claims  Convention,  for  which  I  was  not  prepared. 

"1.  It  is  said,  I  am  told,  tliat  the  claims  to  be  submitted  should  iioj 
be  all  that  have  arisen  subsequent  to  July,  1853. 

"2.  That  no  pi'ovision  is  made  for  the  submission  of  any  losses  wliiclj 
our  Government,  as  such,  may  have  sustained  by  the  recognition  ot'tlitl 
insurgents  as  belligerents,  and  the  depredations  upon  our  coiumerce  b| 
the  'Alabama'  and  other  vessels.    .     .    . 

"As  regards  the  second  objection,"  he  urges,  "I  am  at  a  loss 
imagine  wliat  would  be  the  measure  of  the  damage  which  it  suppose^ 
our  Government  should  be  indeuinifled  for.  How  is  it  to  be  ascertained 
By  what  rule  is  it  to  be  measured  i  A  nation's  honour  can  have  no  coiiij 
pensation  in  money,  and  the  depredations  of  the  'Alabama'  were  ol 
property  in  which  our  nation  had  no  direct  pecuniary  interest.  If  it  b| 
said  that  those  depredations  prevented  the  sending  forth  of  other  coiiv 
mercial  enteriuises,  the  answer  is  twofold :  lirst,  that  if  they  had  beeij 
sent  forth,  the  nation  would  have  had  no  direct  interest  in  them;  aiitl, 
second,  that  it  could  not  be  known  that  any  su(;h  would  have  bwij 
undertaken.  Upon  what  ground,  therefore,  could  the  nation  deniaiiJ 
compensation  in  money  on  either  account  i?  And  if  it  was  received,  ii 
it  to  go  into  the  Treasury  for  the  use  of  the  Government,  or  to  be  (lis) 
tributed  amongst  those  who  may  have  engaged  in  suiih  enterprises,  aiil 
how  many  of  them  are  there,  and  how  aie  they  to  be  ascertainedl 
France  recognized  the  insurgents  as  belligerents,  and  this  may  liavJ 
tended  to  prolong  the  war.  Tiiis,  too,  it  may  be  said,  was  a  violatioi 
of  her  duty,  and  affected  our  honour.  If  we  can  claim  indemnity  m 
our  nation  for  sucii  a  recognition  by  England,  we  can  equally  claim ij 
of  France.     And  who  has  suggested  such  a  claim  as  that? 

"  IJiit  the  linal  and  conclusive  answer  to  these  objections  is  this: 

"  1.  That  at  no  time  during  the  war,  whether  whilst  the  'Alabama' aii| 


M^  -* 


ARBITRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


83 


B  already  explainpdl 
iliugs  of  Coui'ederat( 

instructed  to  infornl 
tates  has  heard  witi 
I  this  city,"  and  pro! 

0  an  end  all  conceJ 
ofore  made  for  itiitif 

1  regard  to  the  ship 

;  is  witii  the  greatesti 
ids  itself  compelled 
rties,  bent  upon  carl 
y,  to  restrict  rathet| 
The  responsibility  foi 
Lipou  those  who,  foil 
md  continue  to  labon 
5  for  the  protractioa 

support  of  his  argnj 
ilaiius  than  those  loif 

show  how  little  sup 
Lious,  as  a  conclusivfl 
lies  from  which  Mil 

ard  dated  Februarjj 
egotiations  witli  Her] 
e  ijuarters  objectioii^ 
i\s  not  prepared, 
ubmitted  should  iioi 

u  of  any  losses  wliiclj 
le  recognition  of  tlia 
on  our  commerce  b(| 

I  am  at  Ji  loss 
e  which  it  suppose! 
t  to  be  ascertainedf 
»ur  can  have  no  coid| 
'Alabama'  were 

interest.  Ifitbfj 
forth  of  other  coiiij 
at  if  they  had  beeif 
erest  in  them ;  and 
h  would  have  becij 
the  nation  deniaul 

it  was  received,  ii 
nment,  or  to  be  disl 
uch  enterprises,  om 
to  be  ascertained! 
and  this  may  liavfl 
lid,  was  a  violatioj 
claim  indemnity  l(i| 
can  equally  claim  i 
s that? 

ections  is  this: 
t  the'Alabanui'aii 


LT 


f 


lier  sister  ships  were  engaged  in  giving  our  marine  to  the  flames,  or 
liiice,  no  branch  of  the  Government  proposed  to  hold  Her  Majesty's 
novenunent  responsible,  ex(!ept  to  the  value  of  the  property  destroyed, 
Mul  that  which  wouhl  have  resulted  from  the  completion  of  the  voyages 
which  they  were  engaged.    The  Government  never  exacted  anything 
kn  its  own  account.    It  acted  only  as  the  guardian  and  protector  of  its 
kwn  citizens,  ami  therefore  only  required  that  this  Government  should 
^ay  their  losses,  or  agree  to  submit  the  question  of  its  liability  to 
riondly  arbitrament.    To  demand  more  now,  and  particularly  to  make 
demand  to  which  no  limit  can  well  be  assigned,  would  be  an  entire  de- 
parture from  our  previous  course,  and  would,  I  am  sure,  not  to  bo  listened 
by  this  Government,  or  countenanced  by  other  nations.    We  have 
kbtaiued  by  the  Convention  iu  question  all  that  we  have  ever  asked  ; 
^nd  with  perfect  opportunity  of  knowing  what  the  sentiment  of  this 
Jovernment  and  people  is,  I  am  satisfied  that  nothing  more  can  be 
ccomplished.    And  I  am  equally  satistied  that  if  the  Convention  goes 
)ito  operation,  every  dollar  due  on  what  are  known  as  the  'Alabama 
flaims'  will  be  recovered.'' 
If  Mr.  Johnson  was  mistaken  in  the  view  thus  decidedly  expressed, 
might  be  expected  that  some  notice  would  have  been  taken  of  so  im- 
kortant  an  error.    l>ut  j\Ir.  Seward's  reply  of  March  3,  18G9,  gives  no 
iitimatiou  of  any  dissent  whatever.    He  writes,  "  Your  despatch  No. 
Jl2  of  the  17th  ultimo,  relative  to  the  Protocol  and  Convention  recently 
jigutd  by  you  on  behalf  of  this  Government,  has  this  day  been  received 
lud  submitted  to  the  President.    He  directs  me  to  say,  in  reply,  that  it 
regarded  as  an  able  and  elaborate  paper,  and  would  have  been  com- 
iiuiicated  to  the  Senate  had  it  not  reached  here  at  the  close  of  the 
Jreseut  Session,  and  that  of  his  Administration." 

Thus,  according  to  an  uncontradicted  statement  in  an  official  des- 

latc'li  from  the  United  States  Minister  in  London  to  the  Government  at 

Vasliington,  officially  published  by  the  United  States  Government,  that 

fiovernment  had  "never  exacted  anything  on  its  own  account,"  and  the 

[laiius  "  l-noicn  as  the  ^Alabama  claims  ^^^  had  been  limited  during  the  whole 

ar,  and  in  the  subsequent  negotiations  up  to  February,  18G9,  to  the 

^aiuis  for  the  value  of  tlie  pro])erty  destroyed,  and  that  which  would 

lave  resulted  from  thecompletion  of  the  voyages  in  which  the  captured 

lesscl.s  were  engaged. 

I\Ir.  Johnson  confirmed  the  statement  in  his  despatch,  in  a  letter  to 

Ir.  J.  A.  Parker,  published  in  the  "New  York  Journal  of  Commerce," 

)lh  Novend)er,  1870:  "  j>Iy  instructions,  as  did  those  of  Mr.  Adams, 

|»okod  exclusively  to  the  adjustment  of  individual  claims,  and  no  alleged 

)iuniission  or  omission  of  the  British  Government  of  her  duty  to  the 

luited  States  pending  the  war  was  given  in  any  part  of  the  correspond- 

|ice  between  the  two  Governments  as  having  any  iuiiueuce  upon  other 

]an  individual  claims." 

It  is  not  easy  to  understand  how  a  class  of  claims  which  had  been 
piown  uiuler  one  appellation  for  seven  years  could  have  suddenly  ac- 
[Hired  a  far  wider  and  more  onerous  signihcancc. 
Mr.  Fish  relies  on  Mr.  lieverdy  Johnson's  proposed  amendment  of 
le  Clarendon-Johnson  Convention,  on  these  public  or  national  claims 
|aving  been  prominently  before  the  Senate  when  that  Convention  was 
?ulor  advisement,  (by  which  it  is  to  be  presumed  he  refers  to  Mr.  Sum- 
ler's  speech,  the  only  part  of  the  proceedings  which  was  published,)  on 
'ic  President's  Message  of  December,  18ul.>,  and  on  his  despatch  to  Mr. 
fotley  of  the  2nth  of  Septeuiber,  18UU. 
Mr.  Johnson's  proposal,  however,  was  not  to  include  national  claims 


d 


i 


I 

fit 
m 


I 

m 


ivMw 

km 

"'  ■ .  '* :  ' 

ir  iiil 

'•-■     -« * 


.*'■'■     '        .'     '■* 

<■  ■.:  ....  •_   ;■- 
■  ■ ' '     ■.'•.'-. 

•■•Si'::-: 

...<>■  _,  .'■  ;,  •■ 

,  '  •'"   ■♦■•-■, 
.," . '  ■■     ♦  ■ 


livr,  ^'-t'>l'^ 


84 


OORRKSPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


„       !  ■ 
i     ■■*    ■it'''' 


H^ 

v-    '     '         ■ 

iiO 

:■*.'  ■■ . 

■  (i 

"■  v  ■'  ■ 

^< 

'  *-  ■     ■"'. 

i-;: 

■  ■.  %:'« '.• 

under  the  liOiid  of  "Alabama  Claims,''  but  to  su])era(l(l  tlicin  by  iiiscrtiiijl 
certain  v,ord>s  alter  the  word.s  "agree  that,"  iu  the  lirst  Article  of  tli«| 
Coiiventioii. 

Tlad  his  i)roi)osal  been  adopted,  the  Article  would  have  stood  thus: 
"The  IIij,'h  Contracting  Parties  agree  that" — here  comes  the  iusertioii-j 
"[all  claims  on  the  part  of  Her  Majesty's  (lovernmeiit  upon  the  Govern, 
ment  of  the  United  States,  and  all  claims  of  the  Government  of  tliel 
United  States  upon  Tier  Majesty's  Government,  andj  all  claims  on  tii«( 
port  of  subjects  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty  upon  the  Government  of  tlie| 
United  States,  and  all  claims  on  the  part  of  citizens  of  the  United  States 
upcn  the  Government  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  including*  the  so-called 
'Alabama  Claims,' "  &:c. 

Mr.  Johnson  avowedly  made  this  ])roposal,  as  Lord  Clarendon  in  i 
formed  you  in  his  despatch  of  the  L*2nd  of  March,  18G1),  to  introduttl 
"claims  to  comi^ensatiou  on  account  of  the  recognition  by  the  Britisil 
Government  of  the  belligerent  rights  of  the  Confederates,"  which  tliel 
British  Government  iniglit  balance  by  "  claims  to  compensation  fori 
damages  done  to  British  subjects  by  Anun-ican  blockades,  which,  if  tliJ 
Confederates  were  not  belligerents,  Avere  illegally  enforced  against  them." 

Mr.  Johnson's  belief  was  that  the  Convention  was  unacceptable  be 
cause  it  did  not  include  national  claims  on  account  of  the  recognition  oil 
belligerent  rights,  which  he  purposely  distinguished  from  the  "Alabamal 
claims,'*  and  was  in  no  respect  thereibre  inconsistent  with  his  despatch  oil 
the  17th  February,  limiting  the  meaning  of  that  expression,  Tlie  in  I 
formation  on  which  lie  founded  that  belief  was  derived,  as  he  reportedl 
to  Mr.  Fish  on  the  9th  of  April,  18G9,  from  a  jtrivate  source;  and  liisf 
suggestion  made  in  the  same  desi)atch,  that  instructions  should  be  giveu| 
to  him  to  endeavour  to  supply  the  omission,  was  not  favourably  enter! 
tained  by  the  United  States  Government,  who  telegraphed  in  reply  thiitj 
"  as  the  Treaty  was  then  b^^fore  the  Senate  no  change  was  deemed  advis  f 
able." 

The  only  intimation,  as  T  have  stated,  which  Her  Majesty's  Govern 
ment  possessed  of  the  propriety  of  making  anj'  demands  for  national 
losses  having  been  debated  or  considered  by  the  Senate,  was,  by  tlje| 
])ublication  of  Mr.  Suu<ner's  speech,  in  w  hich  he  urged  that  England  wib! 
liable  for  national  injuries  of  the  most  extensive  character ;  but  thesef 
injuries  were  rhetorically  dediiced,  chiefly  from  the  Proclamation  ol| 
IS^nitrality,  and  the  sujjplies  furnished  through  the  blockade. 

The  effect  of  Mr.  Sumner's  speech  in  Englan.l  was  reported  by  3Ir,| 
Johnson  to  ]\[r.  Fish  on  the  10th  of  May :  "  If  an  opinion  may  be  fornieil 
from  the  public  press,  there  is  not  the  remotest  chance  that  the  demaiHl> 
contained  in  that  speech  will  evc.r  be  recognized  by  England.    Tlii| 
universal  sentiment  will  be  found  adverse  to  such  a  recognition, 
would  be  held,  as  1  hear  I'rom  every  reliable  source,  to  be  an  abandon  I 
ment  of  the  rights,  and  a  disregard  of  the  honour  of  this  Government." 

Her  ]\rajesty's  Government  never  learnt  that  Mv.  Sumner's  \ie\\>l 
were  indorsed  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Fi.sh  next  mentions  his  instructions  to  J\lr.  Motley,  of  the  25th  oij 
September.  These  instructions,  howev(H',  were  not  communicated  ti^ 
Pier  INIajesty's  (Jovei'nment,  and  when  Mr.  Motley  told  Lonl  (Jlarendoiij 
on  the  iuth  of  June,  1809,  that  the  Convention  "  was  ()bje<!ted  to  becaiD^tl 
it  embraced  oidy  the  claims  of  individuals,  and  hud  no  reference  tul 
those  of  the  two  Governments  on  each  other;  ami,  lastly,  that  itsettlotll 
no  question,  and  laid  down  no  principle,"  he  proceeded  to  speak  of  tlirl 
"risk  and  responsibility"  incurred  by  a  Government  which  couferred 
belligerent  rights,  and  thus  his  representations  naturally  oonnectcil 


tBITKATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENliVA    ARBITRATION. 


85 


il  tlH'iri  by  iiiscrdiijl 
liist  Article  of  tliol 

1  have  stood  tliiis; 
iiR'H  the  iiist'itioii-l 
t  upoutlie  Govern, 
^jovermnent  of  tliel 
J  all  claims  on  tlitl 
Oovenmient  vt'  tlie) 
f  tlie  United  States! 
luding  the  so-called 

jord  Clarondon  in 
1809,  to  introduw 
itiou  by  the  Britisli 
lerates,"  which  tlic 
3  compensation  for 
wades,  which,  if  tin- 
need  against  them." 
IS  unacceptable  be 
f  the  recognition  of 
from  the  "Alabama 
vith  his  despatch  ol 
xpression.  Tlie  in 
ved,  as  he  reported 
ite  source ;  and  lli^ 
ons  should  be  given 
)t  favourably  enter. 
iphed  in  reply  that 
was  deemed  advis 

Majesty's  Govern  | 

nands  for  natioiia 

enate,  was,  by  tlje| 

1  that  England  wib 

laracter;  but  these! 

Proclamation  oil 

ockade. 

[IS  reported  by  ]\Ir,[ 

ion  nuiy  be  fornieiil 

that  the  demaiKl-r 

ly  England.    TlicI 

I  recognition. 

0  be  an  abandon  | 
lis  Government," 
Sumner's  vie\v> 

'S. 

\oy,  of  the  2oth  oij 
communicate<l 

1  Lord  (Jlarendoiij 
>jected  to  becausol 
ll  no  reference  ti'l 

ly,  that  its'^ttleil 
1  to  speak  of  tliil 
wliicli  couferrciil 
urallv  connected 


llliiMiiselves   with   IMr.  Johnson's  proposal  with  regard  to  the  mutual 
Icliiinis  of  the  two  (Jovernments. 

3Ir.  Fish  admits  that,  in  his  despatch  of  the  U5th  of  September,  he 
niadc  no  claim  or  demand  f(U'  either  direct  or  indirect  injuries." 
These  indirect  injuries  could  not  theref<u'e  have  receive(l  the  designa- 
Itiou  of  ''Alabama  dhiiins^'  from  that  despatch. 

indeed,  on  examining  the  ertraets  which  he  gives  from  it  with  their 
Icontcxt,  it  is  ;i])i)arent  that  the  "•  vast  national  injuries''  which  he  states 
Itluit  he  presented  in  it  are  ascribed  to  other  cau.ses  than  the  acts  com- 
Iiiiitti'd  by  the  Gonfech'rate  eruizers. 

The  lirst  extract,  beginning  "  The  nund)er  of  our  ships  thus  directly 
I  destroyed,''  tS:c.,  folk)\vs  a  paragraph  comi>laining  of  the  rroclamation  of 
K'entrality  : — "'  In  virtue  of  the  rroclamation,  nuxritime  enterprises  in  the 
ports  of  Great  Britain,  Avhich  would  otherwise  have  been  piratical,  were 
rendered  lawful,  aiid  tltits  Great  Britain  became,  and  to  the  end  con- 
tinned  to  be,  the  arsenal,  the  navy-yard,  and  the  treasury  of  the  Con- 
jfederaey. 

"A  spectacle  was  ihus  presented  without  precedent  or  parallel  in  the 
Ihistory  of  civilized  imtions,  Great  Britain,''  «S:c. 
The  .second  extract  runs  thus* — 

"  We  complain  th;jt  the  insurrection  in  the  Southern  States,  if  it  did 
[not  exi.st,  was  continued,  and  obtained  its  enduring  vitality,  by  means 
jof  the  resources  it  drew  from  Great  Britain.  We  complain  that  by  rea- 
Ison  of  the  imperfect  discharge  of  its  neutral  duties  on  the  part  of  the 
Queen's  Government,  Great  Britain  became  the  military,  njival,  and 
jtinancial  basis  of  insurgent  warfare  against  the  United  States.  We 
Icomplain  of  the  destruction  of  our  merchant  marine  by  British  ships, 
]  manned  by  British  seamen,  armed  with  British  guns,  dispatched  from 
j British  dockyards,  sheltered  and  harboured  i:i  British  ports.  We  com- 
plain that,  by  reason  of  the  policy  and  acts  of  the  Queen's  ^Ministers, 
[injury  incalculable  was  inflicted  on  the  United  States." 

The  third  extract,  respecting  the  vast  national  injuries,  is  followed 
jin  the  despatch  by  a  passage  explaining  the  various  causes  of  injury, 
which  Mr.  Fish  has  omitted  to  notice, "  Nor  does  he  attempt  now  to 
nieasure  the  relative  eflect  of  the  various  causes  of  injury,  as  whether 
by  untimely  recognition  of  belligerency,  by  suffering  the  fitting  out  of 
rebel  cruizers,  or  by  the  supply  of  ships,  arms,  and  munitions  of  war  to 
I  the  Confederates,  or  otherwise,  in  whatsoever  manner." 

Lord  Clarendon's  memorandum  of  observations  on  Mr.  Fish's  des- 
I  patch,  like  the  despatch  itself,  touched  on  various  topics  besides  that  of 
the  Confederate  cruizers,  and  Her  Majesty's  Government  cannot  admit 
that,  because  Mr.  Motley  read  a  despatch  to  Lord  Clarendon  on  the  12th 
of  January,  187C,  stating  that  Mr.  Fish  had  not  included  it  "among  the 
papers  respecting  the 'Alabama  claims,'"  theri^fore  all  the  subjects  men- 
tioned in  it  were  "Alabama  claims." 

Still  less  can  they  admit  that  because  Mr.  Bernard,  in  the  14th 
[  Ciiapter  of  his  work,  gave  certain  extracts  from  IMr.  Fish's  despatch, 
under  the  head  of  "xVlabama  claims,"  that  despatch  became  the  standard 
by  which  the  claims  known  as  the  "Alabama  claims"  was  to  be  meas- 
u:'ed.  It  happens  moreover  that,  in  the  extracts  given  by  Mr.  Bernard 
in  the  chapter  to  which  IMr.  Fish  refers,  the  three  passages  cited  by  Mr. 
Fisa  in  his  present  despatch  as  relating  to  indirect  injuries  and  national 
losse.s  are  omitted. 

It  oidy  renuiins  to  notice  the  Presiaent's  ]Message  of  December,  1869. 
This  .Mes.sage  does  not  mention  the  "Alabama  claims,"  but  speaks  of  the 


m 


^    4 


!  •'' 


i.K-: 


v.- .  \. 


..:■»  ■*-;:'■■ 


■■<-.J.  •*'.!■■■',.■> 


> 

;,;■■*:■,> 

i. 

■■ 

.  -"    »;• 

1   . 

• 

•J 

■■  t 

;'■■ 

■fc 

.y  '••'  ■' 

■ 

v.. 

»». 

• 

•        .     :    ■  ■ 

'■V7 

1 J  - 

-4. 

\f. 

&{■ 

v' 

:'./  ■.:'• 

Mi 

'■/ 

1.  -■!■    ' 

86 


rORRESPONDENCK    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


"iiijurios  rosuUiii}?  to  the  ITiiitod  Stnt«'s  by  roason  of  tlie  course  a«lo|tteii| 
by  (iieat  liritain  (hiriii}i:  our  late  Civil  War." 

1  have  thus  been  able  to  show  u])oii  the  testimony  of  ^\v.  IJeverdvl 
Johnson,  the  American  IMinister,  corroborated  on  examination  by  tliJ 
extracts  cited  by  INIr.  Fish,  that  for  the  first  seven  years  of  the  disonJ 
sion  np  to  1809,  none  bnt  direct  claims  were  "known  as  'iXlabaiiJ 
claims:'"  And  that  in  the  oidy  authoritative  document  in  wliitlil 
national  indirect  injuries  were  mentioned,  ni>  to  the  time  of  the  recpul 
negotiation,  they  ^vere  not  described  as  "Alabama  claims,"  or  asclaimsl 
of  any  description. 

Mr.  Fish  states  that  "continental  jurists  and  publicists  discussfdl 
the  national  claims  on  account  of  the  prolonpition  of  the  war  under  tliel 
head  of '  reclamations,'  having  '  (pi'un  rai)iu)rt  iwlirect,  et  nullement  uii| 
rapport  direct    avec    les  depredations    reellement   commises  par  h 
croiseurs.'" 

The  quotation  a])pears  to  be  taken  from  a  pamjihlet  by  Dr.  IJliintl 
sdili,  entitled  "Opinion  impartialesnrla  (piestion  de  'I'Alabama'  et  snil 
la  maniere  de  la  resoudre."  In  this  pamphlet  Dr.  Bliintschli  reviews  tlie| 
various  i)oints  njcntioned  by  Mr.  8umner  in  his  speei^h  in  the  Senate 
the  13th  of  February,  18()1>,  including  the  r<'cognition  of  beUigereiicyJ 
In  the  sixth  section  he  discusses  the  ett'ects  attributed  by  Mr.  Sumiiwl 
to  the  acts  of  the  "Alabama"  and  other  vessels,  and  states  that  all  thel 
efi'ects  are  attributable,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  cruizers  themselvos,! 
and  not  to  the  British  Government.  "Sa  faute  ne  consiste  pas  ii  avoiti 
equipd  et  appareille  les  corsaires,  ma  Is  a  ■ii'aroir  itas  ewpecho  leur  arniel 
nient  et  leur  sortie  de  son  territoire  neutre.  INIais  cette  fatite*  n'a  qu'uii" 
rapport  indirect  et  nullement  un  rapport  direct  avec  les  depredations 
reellement  commises  i)ar  les  croiseurs."t  Dr.  Bliuitschli's  remark  did 
not,  therefore,  relate  to  claims  for  indirect  losses,  nor  does  the  woidl 
"r«';clamations"  occur  in  the  sentence,  in  the  paragraph,  or  in  the  wliolel 
section  from  which  the  quotation  is  taken.  All  that  he  says  is,  that  tliej 
default  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  by  which  the  cruisers  escaped,  liasf 
but  an  indirect,  and  in  no  Avay  a  direct,  connection  with  the  depre(lii| 
tions  actually  committed  by  them. 

Mr.  Fish  gives  as  a  reason  for  no  claims  for  national  losses  haviiigl 
been  "  defined"  or  formulated,  that  Lord  Kussell  objected,  in  July,  l.SC3,[ 
to  any  claims  being  put  forward.  As  Mi:  Adams  continued  to  presciitj 
claims  for  the  destriu;tion  of  ])roperty  by  tlie  "Alabama"  in  August,! 
September,  and  October  of  that  year,  and  numbers  of  siuiilar  dir('(i[ 
cli.imshave  since  been  presented,  Her  ^Majesty's Government  are  unal)le| 
to  see  the  ibrce  of  this  argument. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  reason,  the  fact  remains,  that  up  tol 
the  time  .,f  the  arrival  of  the  British  High  Connnissioners  at  AVashiiisT 
ton,  the  term  "Alabaina  claims"  had  a  recognized  and  well-known  mean 
ing  as  direct  claims,  and  that  no  other  clai>is  had  been  ])resente<lto  tlitl 
British  Government.  Xor,  indeed,  were  these  other  claims  even  tlieiij 
presented. 

The  American  High  Gomniissiojiers,  as  appears  by  the  ,'50th  Protocol,! 
stated  that  the  history  of  the  "Alabama,"  and  other  cruizers,  showed 
extensive  direct  losses,  and  indirect  injury,  and  that  Great  Britain  had 
become  jnstlj' liable /r>r ///f  «(ct,-t  of  those  cruizers  and  their  tenders; 
that  the  claims  for  the  loss  and  destruction  of  private  pro[)erty,  whicli 
had  thus  far  been  presented,  amounted  to  about  14,000,000  dollars,  aiiil| 

*  'llio  italics  are  Dr.  lUiiut.slili's. 

+  "Ivovuo  do  Droit  luteniatioiiul  et  ileLc'gislatiun  ccuniiiiitH","  l^Td,  pp.  47;)-4. 


ARHITRATION. 

)f'  tlip  course  adojifcijl 

rioiiy  of  ^\r.  UoxcrM 

exiniiiiiatiou  by  tliJ 

yoars  of  tlie  (ifsonJ 

known  as  '^MahiiniJ 

document  in  wh'ui 

0  time  of  tlie  recpiil 
claims,"  or  as  claiiiij 

publicists  cliscusspdl 
r)f  the  war  under  tliel 
nrt,  et  nullement  uil 
;   commises  par  h\ 

il)ldet  by  Dr.  IJliintl 
le  'I'Alabama'  et  sm| 
liints(!hli  reviews  tlitl 
cell  iu  the  Senate  oiil 
tion  of  belli^erencyj 
uted  by  Mr.  Sumiiwl 
id  states  that  all  tk\ 
^ruizers  thcmselveJ 
consiste  pas  ii  avoirl 
s  I'lupecM  leur  arnie  [ 
ette  favtt^  u'a  qu'iinl 
ec  les  depredatioiisl 
itschli's  remark  i 

1  nor  does  the  word! 
iph,  or  in  the  whokl 

he  says  is,  that  tliel 

•uisers  escaped,  liasl 

with  the  deprcdivl 

onal  losses  having) 
cted,  in  July,  18C3,[ 
itinued  to  prescntj 
bama"  in  AujiastJ 
s  of  similar  direct 
rnment  are  nnaWcl 

Mnains,  that  up  to 
)iiers  at AVasliiii;'! 

well-known  niciiii  [ 
'U  presented  to  tlu' I 

claims  even  tlien 

the  ;J(}th  J?rotocol 
cruizers,  showed  I 

Llreat  IJritain  had 

|id  their  tenders; 
propertv,  whicli 

f(),OU()  dollars,  and 


nORRESPONDENCE    UKSPKCTING    GENKVA    ARBITRATION. 


87 


I'  i-^rii,  i>i).  47;m. 


f'tliiit  ill  the  hope  of  an  amicable  settlement,  no  e^.tiniate  was  made  of 
[lie  indirect  losses,  without  prejudice,  however,  to  the  v'\g\\t  to  indemni- 
iciition  on  their  account,  in  the  event  of  no  such  settlement  being  nmde." 
The  "indire<!t  losses'' were  thus  mentioned,  not  as  clnimH,  but  aa 
grievances,  and  were  mentioned  only  :o  be  withdrawn  from  discussion. 
'  .Mr.  Fish  says  that  it  is  unfortunate  that  the  British  Vu\*\\  (Jommis- 
sioiiers  did  not  remonstrate  against  the  presentation  of  these  claims,  and 
Mfnun  the  first  to  the  last  took  no  exception,  and  recorded  no  objection, 
to  the  presentation  made  by  the  American  Commissioners  of  the  claims 
\emrkalhj  known  as  the  'Alabama  claiujs,'  which  stand  on  the  Protocol 
IS  a  'genus,'  or  class  of  claims  comprehemling  several  si)ecies,  and 
iinioiig  them  enumerating  speciti«ally  the  claims  for  indirect  losses  and 
Injuries.'' 

The  answer  to  this  is,  that  no  mention  is  made  in  the  Protocol  of 
'claiins  generically  known  as  the  'Alabama  claims,'"  or  of  any  specific 
['UUiTieration  of  them,  or  of  any  such  presentation  at  all.  All  that  oc- 
\:\m\'a\  was  the  above  mentioned  statement  that  the  history  of  the  "Ala- 
bama" and  other  cruizers  showed  indirect  injuries,  followed  by  the  waiver 
)f  the  indemnification  on  their  account,  in  the  hope  of  an  amicable 
Kctt  lenient. 

The  liritish  High  Commissioners  thereupon  took  the  natural  course 
Jot"  not  "entering  upon  a  lengthened  controversy"  upon  the  barren  ques- 
jtlon  of  injuries  for  whicli  they  believed  no  claim  was  iiresented,  and 
Ithese  i.  direct  losses  ami  injuries  were  never,  as  you  are  aware,  again 
Ihrought  forward  by  the  American  High  Commissioners,  nor  did  they 
jrc-appear  until  they  were  revived  iu  the  Case  preseuted  by  the  United 
jstates'  Agent  at  Geneva,  on  the  loth  of  December. 

3Ir.  Fish  could  not  have  been  ignorant,  from  the  report  to  which  1 
lliave  already  referred,  Avhich  he  had  received  from  Mr.  Johnson,  and 
ifioni  the  discussions  in  the  public  press,  of  the  feeling  in  England  with 
Iregard  to  the  exaggerated  pretensions  in  Mr.  Sumner's  speech;  and 
Iwhen  he  intended  to  introduce  as  "Alabama  claims,"  similar  claims  of 
[equally  onerous  character,  it  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  he  and  his  col- 
leagues did  not  explain  more  clearly  that  by  "an  amicable  settlement" 
tliey  iiuvmt  one  particular  form  of  settlement,  and  that  if  the  British 
High  Commissioners  did  not  ac<iuiesce  in  it,  they  would  bring  forward 
the  constructive  claims,  for  whicli  an  enormous  indemity  might  be  held 
I  due. 

Instead  of  this,  the  American  High  Commissioners  made  a  state- 

hneiit  which  was  accepted  by  the  British  High  Commissioners  and  read 

by  Iler  Majesty's  (Jovernment,  and,  as  far  as  they  are  aware,  by  the 

IJiress  and  public  of  both  countries,  in  a  sense  which,  it  is  now  stated, 

the  American  High  Commissioners  never  intended  it  to  bear,  but  which, 

until  the  interpretation  appeared  in  the  American  Case,  seemed  the 

I  only  sense  iu  which  it  coidd  be  read. 

Iler  Majesty's  Government  cannot  accept  the  view  which  Mr.  Fish 
appears  to  eiitertain  that  a  negotiation  niust  necessarilj^  be  a  matter  of 
bargain,  in  which  a  concession  on  one  side  is  to  be  set  oft"  in  each  in- 
stance against  a  (joncession  on  the  other.  The  waiver  of  the  construct- 
ive claims  Avas,  as  I  stated  to  General  Schenck,  a  requisite  i)reliminax'y 
to  the  negotiation,  because  Her  Majesty's  Government  could  not  (as  the 
Ciovernment  of  the  United  States  must  have  been  aware  then,  and  must 
have  since  beconie  convinced)  have  assented  to  any  mode  of  settlement 
which  comprised  these  constructive  claims,  upon  which  the  opinion  of 
this  country  had  already  been  pronounced  so  strongly  when  they  were 
raised  by  Mr.  Sumner. 


'1j ' 


u\ 


I 

ft  I 


n 


I 


5l 


I. 


m 


I 


WM 


I'  iini-J  ,^, 


.1  t     > 


^   v^-^ 


■ 

l 

r'ifl 

■4"  4 

irV'ii  K 

■.  '   ', 

'  •■•'!! 

r  .•  >  , 

;  ,        '■* 

■  ♦', 


I-     •;■  ■■  .'  '■.    ■  J 


■I  :'.  t , 


■  h'     '■ 

1  \" 

!•■','•  -.     - 

' '     \ 

•  '  li.  ;i    ' 

'.  "* 

i»-  .■  •■'.:!• 

■■'^^'■\ 

■-''■^."•■■■l.  ■ 

•  ■,."'■■■  ;,;tri-  •   . 

■t-,  :■■ 


-.,  i;.':-' 


{-■' 


S8 


COKUKSl'ONDENCE    RESPi:CTLN(i    (JKNKVA    AKHITUATION. 


Mr.  Fisli  .islvs,  "How  could  it  li;i|)i><'ii  tliat  so  importiint  si  f'cjitmc  dil 
thi'  lu'fi'otiiition  as  this  iillc^icil  waivci'  is  now  n'pit'sciitcd  to  lie,  was  Iciil 
t<»  iii'ii'iviua',  or  to  arj;uinoiit  tVoiii  iiitciitioiis  iirAcr  ixpn-sscd  to  tliel 
Coiniiiissioiicrs  or  the  (Joveriwiiciit  of  Hit'  Uiiiti'd  States  until  ufti-r  tlii| 
Treaty  was  si^^ncdi 

"Tlio  amplitude  and  the  comitrclu'nsivr  t'orcci  of  Iht;  1st  Article  (nrl 
the  yraiitinj;'  clause)  of  the  Treaty  did  not  escapti  the  critical  atlentioiil 
of  Her  Majesty's  Connnissioneis;  but  was  any  effort  made  to  limit,  drl 
reduce  the  scojje  of  tin;  submission,  or  to  cx<Iude  the  indire(;t  claims.'  [ 

The  answer  to  this  is  that,  in  the  lirst  jdace,  the  Uritish  Ili;;h  Coiiil 
missioners  believed  that  after  tho  waiver  they  were  a<;i'eed  willi  tlifj 
United  States  Ilifili  Commissioiu'is  ui)ou  the  basis  of  the  terms  of  tliJ 
subnnssion;  and,  in  the  si^eond  place,  that  they  did  limit  the  scope  ofj 
th»i  submission. 

The  JJritisli  lli<;li  Commissioners,  in  the  information  which  they  havtl 
furidslu'd  to  Her  iMaJesty's  Clovernment,  both  durinj;'  the  iiejiotiatidii 
and   since  the   presinitation   of  the  American  Case,   have   uniforiiih 
inaintained  tbat  the  claims  for  indirect  losses  were  not  included,  noil 
intended  by  them  to  be  included,  in  the  terms  of  the  submission  tol 
arbitration,  and  you  are  aware  that  the  DritisU  Hiyh  Commissioners [ 
objected  to  the  adoption  of  a  form  of  reference  to  the  Arbitrators,whitli 
might  from  its  va{>'uenes8  be  taken  to  permit  the  introduction  of  suelil 
claims,  and  that  it  was  not  until  after  lengthened  discussion  in  tliej 
Ccmmission  that  the  terms  of  reference  as  they  now  stand  intheTreatyl 
were  settled. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  cannot  acknowledge  that  the  nature  ofl 
tlie  claims  submitted  was  left  to  inference.  On  the  contrary,  the  pre  | 
else  claims  referred  to  arbitration  were  closely  deliued  and  limited. 

Mr.  Fish  writes  as  though  the  reference  to  arbitration  comprised  "dif  I 
ferences"  and  "complaints,"  and  "all  claims;"  but  the  British  Higlil 
Commissioners  especially  guarded  against  this.  The  claims  submitted | 
must  be  both  "claims  growing  out  of  the  acts  committed  by  the  afore 
said  vessels,"  i.  e.,  "Alabama"  and  other  cruizers,  and  claims  "  generically  j 
known  as  the  'Alabama  claims.'" 

The  use  of  the  words  "acts  committed"  admittedly  excludes  tliej 
questions  of  blockade-running  and  concession  of  belligerent  rights  from 
the  arbitration,  and  the  specitication  of  the  claims  as  "  claims  generically  [ 
known  as  the  'Alabama  claims'"  limits  them  to  the  class  of  directl 
claims;  which  it  has,  1  trust,  been  abundantly  shown  were  alone  known  [ 
at  the  time  as  "Alabama  claims." 

Mr.  Fish  attJiches  some  importance  in  support  of  his  views  to  the  M'ordsl 
"growing  out  of"  and  "generically,"  but  the  first  phrase  is  takeu 
from  Mr.  Adams's  letter  of  the  3 1st  of  October,  1803,  when,  in  forwarding 
"a  number  of  memorials  and  other  papers  connected  with  the  dei)ie' 
dations  of  the  vessel  formerly  called  the  "  Oreto,"  and  now  the  "  Florida,"! 
he  observed  that  "the  conclusion  to  which  it  would  seem  that  botli 
Governments  arrive  in  regard  to  the  disposition  to  be  made  of  the 
claims  growing  out  of  the  depredations  of  the  'Alabama'  and  other 
vessels  issuing  from  British  ports  appears  to  render  further  discussion 
of  the  merits  of  the  question  unnecessary."    No  mention  whatever  of 
indirect  or  constructive  claims  had  been  made  at  this  time,  and  the 
claims  to  whicli  Mr.  Adams  referred  arc  manifestly  the  clainis  for  actual  | 
damages. 

W  ?n  the  same  expression  is  used  again  it  uuist  be  taken  to  have] 
the  same  meaning. 

1  will  not  follow  31r. Fish  into  the  etymologv  of  the  word  "generically."! 


liBITKATION. 


CORKESI'ON'DKNCK    UKSrECTINO    OENKVA    AlllUTRATION. 


8i> 


[)ortin«t  it  r«'iilm('ii!| 
'iitt'd  to  Ik',  was  Iciil 
V  f-xpit'ssi'd  to  tlif| 
atcs  until  after  tin 

the  Ist  Aiticle  (dri 
le  critical  attoiiti 
I    made   to  limit  (irl 
u!  iiulii'cct  claims; '[ 

IJritish  lli;;ii  Com 
If.  ajiiccd  with  tiicl 
of  the,  t(!rms  of  tlicf 

limit  the  scope  (i[| 

on  which  they  havil 
iiy  the  iief^otiatidiil 
\e,  have  uiiifonnh 
)  not  included,  noil 
■  the  submission  to) 
iyh  Commissioners  f 
B  ArbitratorSjWhittil 
troductiou  of  suehl 
I  discussion  in  tliel 
stand  in  tlie  Treaty [ 

that  the  nature  ofl 
J  contrary,  the  pre  [ 
ed  and  limited, 
[ion comprised  "dill 
;  the  British  HiftLl 
o  claims  submittt'dl 
lifted  by  the  afore 
aims  "geuericallvl 

edly  excludes  tliel 

;vrent  rights  from 

claims  generically 

le  class  of  direct 

were  alone  known  [ 

views  to  the  words  I 
phrase  is  taken 
ien,iu  for  warding  I 
d  with  the  dei)re- 
ow  the  "Florida,"! 
d  seem  that  both 
be  Hiade  of  tlie 
bama'  and  other 
urther  discussion  I 
tion  whatever  of| 
iis  time,  and  tliol 
?  claims  for  actual 

be  taken  to  have  | 

)rd  "  generically." 


•  •(Jniericaily  known  as  the  'Alabama  claims'"  seems  t«:  '  .  the  same  a;s 
|lli('  "(lass  (»f  claims  known  as  the  'Alalian-a  claims,"'  I'le  phrase  used,  in 
Itlie  Stiinley-lohnson  ('onvention,  and  serves  to  distinguish  this  class  of 
jclaiiiis  from  every  other  class  of  (claims  which  the  United  States  (iovei-n- 
jiiii'iit  might  have  to  prefer.  The  ''Alabama  claims'' have  been  desig 
(iiiitedas  a  "  (tiass  of  claims"  to  avoid  tlu^  misapprehension,  which  at  one 
Itiiiie  scenu'd  to  have  occurred  to  Mr.  Heward,  tliat  tlu^  words  "Alabama 
Iclaiiiis"'  might  be  construed  as  meaning  only  claims  on  account  of 
liii  juries  sustained  from  tln'.one  vessel  "Alabama."    The  i)hrase  itself  goes 

very  far  to  deline  itsown  limited  meaning;  l\)r,  w  hile  it  is  (piite  intelligible 

tiiat,  ior  i»n'vity's  sake,  the  name  of  one  vessel  should  stand  for  otlnu's 
J()f  a  particidar  class,  of  which  it  is  the  priiuMpal  e\ani])le,  it  appears  to 
(he  contrary  to  all  reason  that  the  name  of  such  a  particular  ship  should 
Ihe  used  to  describe  claijns  lor  g«!neral  national  losses,  such  as  those  for 
Itlie  decline  of  the  commercial  marine  of  the  Unitetl  States  and  the  pro- 
llongation  of  tln^  war. 

Mr.  Fish,  with  r<'ference  t(»  the  remark  in  his  <lespatch  of  the  27tli 
lof  February,  that  the  indirect  claims  are  covered  by  one  of  the  alterna- 
Itivcs  of  the  Treaty,  states  that  the  (lovernment  of  the  United  States 
lare  "of  the  opinion  that  they  are  covered  by  thealterinitive  power  given 
Jto  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  of  awarding  a  sum  in  gross,  in  case  it 
jlinds  that  (h-eat  Britain  has  failed  to  fultil  any  duty,  or  of  remitting  to 
la  Board  of  Assessors  the  deteraiinaiion  of  the  validity  of  claims  pre- 
jsented  to  them,  and  the  amounts  to  be  paid." 

The  Ylth  article  of  the  Treaty,  after  stating  the  three  rales,  ])roceeds : 
I" Her  Britannic  Majesty  has  commanded  her  High  Commissioners  and 
Irienipotentiaries  to  declare  that  Her  ^Majesty's  Government  cannot 
lassent  to  the  foregoing  Kules  as  a  statement  of  principles  of  interna- 
Itional  law  which  were  in  force  <ft  the  time  ichen  the  clniins  mentioned  In 
lArf/iVc /arose;  but  that  Her  31a jesty's  Government  ....  agrees 
jtliat,  in  deciding  the  questions  between  the  two  countries  arising  out  of 
\those  claimn,  the  Arbitrators  should  assume,"  &c. 

Article  VII  provides  that  "the  said  Tiibnunl  shall  first  determine  m 
\to  each  vessel  separatebj  whether  Great  Britain  has,  by  any  act  or  omis- 
Ision,  lailed  to  fulfil  any  of  the  duties  set  forth  in  the  three  foregoing 
JKules,  or  recognized  by  the  principles  of  international  law  not  iucon- 
jsistent  with  such  Kules,  and  shall  eertify  such  fact  as  to  each  of  the  said 
tvcsHcls.  In  case  the  Tribunal  liml  that  Great  Britain  huH  failed  to  fulfil 
\ttny  duty  or  duties  as  aforesaid,  it  may,  if  it  think  proper,  ])roceed  to 

award  a  sum  in  gross  to  be  paid  by  Great  iJritain  for  all  the  claims 
\ref erred  to  It." 

All  the  claims  must  mean  all  the  "claims  mentioned  in  Article  I." 
Mr.  Fish  admits  that  the  indirect  losses  are  not  covered  by  what  he 
jtcrms  the  other  "  alternative"  of  the  Treaty,  viz.,  the  provision  in  Article 

X,  that  "in  case  the  Tribunal  tinds  that  Great  Britain  has  failed  to  ful- 

till  any  duty  or  duties  as  aforesaid,  and  does  not  award  a  sum  in  gross, 

the  High  Contracting  Parties  agree  that  a  JJoard  of  Assessors  shall  be 
[appointed  to  ascertain  and  determine  what  claims  are  valid,  and  what 

iunount  or  amounts  shall  be  paid  by  Great  Britain  to  the  United  States 
I  on  ac(;ount  of  the  liability  arising  from  such  failure,  as  to  each  vessel, 

acc(U'ding  to  the  extent  of  such  liability  as  decided  by  the  Arbitrators." 

Mr.  W.  JJeach  Lawrence,  the  distinguished  Anu'ri(!an  publicist,  in 

la  letter  dated  the  L'Oth  ultimo,  and  published  in  the  Siuingfleld  In- 

I dependent,  observes: — "As   in  each  case  determined  against  Great 

Ihitain,  the  Board  of  Assessors  are,  by  Article  X,  to  ascertain  ami 
[determine  the  amount  which  shall  be   i)aid  by  Great  Britain  to  the 


i'.i 


U 


■i4 


t 


ill,?',-;'      ■ 

I-    ' 


,  .-  ^._i     ■;  .1'. 


.'I 


'•.»:J.  '  -.'f 


•■'■';  K;i 


'•    , .  "  *    '     ■  ' 

"1 ' 

■'■■'.  -';  "'■.•^''^:' 

.■*•■■ 

>'  ■•.,;t_r'-- 


90 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


United  Stsites  on  ficcount  of  the  liability  arising  from  sncli  failure  astol 
each  vessel,  according  to  the  extent  of  such  liability  as  decided  by  tiiel 
Arbitrators,  there  wonld  seem  to  be  no  room  for  indirect  damages.! 
Besides  the  difficulty  of  deciding  on  a  claim  indeterminable  in  its  naturej 
there  would  be  the  further  embarrassment  of  apportioning  the  amouiitl 
of  injury  growing  out  of  the  acts  of  each  vessel  in  the  general  acconntT 
Is  it  possible  that  the  Assessors  are  to  decide  what  part  of  the  pro! 
longation  of  the  war  is  to  be  assigned  to  each  vessel  ?  I  am  aware  tliatl 
there  is  a  provision  that  the  Arbitrators  may,  after  they  have  decidedl 
as  to  each  vessel  separately,  award  a  sum  in  gross  for  all  the  claimsl 
referred  to  then?.  I  cannot,  however,  perceive  liow  that  provision  inl 
any  wise  extends  the  scope  of  the  power  of  the  Tribunal."  Her  Majesty's^ 
Government  cannot  pei'ceive  it  either. 

By  both  Articles  VII  and  X,  the  Arbitrators  are  to  determine  tliel 
extent  of  the  liability  of  Great  Britain  as  to  each  vessel,  i.  e.,  as  to  eacli| 
cruizer  separately.  Throughout,  the  claims  are  strictly  connected  witlil 
the  acts  of  the  cruizers.  Mr.  Fish  acknowledges  that,  if  the  claims  arel 
considered  in  detail,  the  indirect  losses  cannot  be  taken  into  accouutj 
and  yet,  as  he  states,  they  have  been  "  presented  at  Geneva,  not  aJ 
claims  for  which  a  si)ecific  demand  was  made,  but  as  losses  and  injunesj 
consequent  upon  the  acts  complained  of,  and  necessarily  to  be  takeul 
into  equitable  consideration  on  a  final  settlement  and  adjudication  of| 
all  the  differences  submitted  to  the  Tribunal." 

I  have  already  pointed  out  that  "  claims"  and  not  "  differences  "  havel 
been  submitted ;  and  ]\Ir.  Fish's  contention  would  amount  to  this,  that,! 
in  awar<ling  damages  for  a  s])ecific  want  of  due  diligence  in  regard  to  al 
particular  vessel,  the  Arbitrators  should  take  into  consideration  al 
variety  of  grievances  not  necessarily  connected  with  that  vessel,  audi 
which  could  not  be  made  matters  for  a  claim  if  examined  in  detail,  andj 
award  a  gross  sum  not  proportioned  to  the  Avant  of  dilig  uce  or  to  tliel 
injury  thereby  occasioned,  but  swelled  by  the  amount  of  all  the  injurie/ 
and  losses  of  which  the  United  States  may  have  complained  in  all  tlie| 
correspondeiu;e  of  which  the  history  of  the  cruizers  forms  i)art. 

That  is  to  say,  that  the  Arbitrators  should  give  judgment  in  oiml 
matter  and  iniiict  a  ])enalty  for  another  matter.  A  principle  so  con] 
trary  to  the  ordinary  i»ractice  of  jurisprudence  could  not  have  been  pre 
sumed  by  the  British  High  Commissioners,  or  by  Her  Jlajesty's  (Joverii  I 
nient,  to  have  been  intended  to  be  introduced,  unless  the  intention  was! 
explained  to  them  ;  but,  from  first  to  last,  no  mention  of  indirect  lossos| 
was  made  in  connection  with  the  payment  of  a  gross  sum. 

If  the  American  High  Commissioners  desired  that  the  alteruativtl 
of  the  award  of  a  gross  sum  should  cover  the  claims  for  indirect  lossesj 
why  Avere  they  not  more  e\i)li('it '!  and  wliy  did  they  not  require  sonifj 
lu'ovision  fo  be  made  in  the  Treaty  to  explain  this  for  the  guidance  (ii| 
the  Arbitrators  ? 

jNIr.  Fish  says  that  "the  cliiims  for  indirect  losses  were  ])i"esente(l  tol 
the  JJritish  Commissioners  as  soh'innly  and  iritk   more  dtjimteucss  A 
KpiTiJivaiioH  than  were  presented  by  them  to  the  American  Commission [ 
ers  the  claims  for  alleged  injuries  which  the  people  of  Canada  were  said 
to  have  suffered  from  what  was  known  as  the  Fenian  raids." 

Jlut  the  indirect  losses  weri^  never  "]»resented"  as  "(;laims,"  and  anj 
«'ven  now  sai<l  not  to  b<^  "presented  as  claims"  for  which  a.  specific  di' 
mand  is  made;  while  the  l'\'nian  raid  "claims"  were  ])ro]»osed  for  coiil 
sideration  on  the  4th  of  .Mai'ch;  again  "brought  before"  the  llislij 
Ciunmission  on  the  iMJfh  of  Ajtril,  when  the  JUitisli  negotiators  said  tliatl 
*'they  were  instructed  to  present  these  claims,"  and  it  was  not  untU  tbel 


•I"  '\\ 


RBITRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


91 


3m  such  failure  as  tol 
ty  as  decided  by  thel 
V  indirect  daiuages,! 
ninable  in  its  naturel 
"tioning  the  aniountl 
the  general  acconntl 
:hat  part  of  the  praj 
(1 '?  I  am  aware  tliiitl 
•  they  have  decidedj 
IS  for  all  the  claimsl 
iw  that  provision  inl 
xnal."  Her  Majesty's! 

re  to  determine  thel 
essel,  i.  e.,  as  to  eachl 
ictly  connected  witlil 
lat,  if  the  claims  are| 
taken  into  accouut; 
I  at  Geneva,  not  aJ 
IS  losses  and  injuries j 
;essarily  to  be  takeDl 
and  adjudication  ofl 

b  "  differences  "  havel 
amount  to  this,  thati 
igence  in  regard  to  al 
nto  consideration  il 
|ith  that  vessel,  audi 
nineil  in  detail,  audi 
dilig  nee  or  to  thel 
nt  of  all  the  injuriesl 
omplained  in  all  thej 
forms  part. 

judgment  in  omi 

S.  principle  so  couf 

not  have  been  pre 

^Majesty's  IJoveru  I 

the  intention  wisl 

)n  of  indirect  losse.<| 

sum. 

at  the  alternativii 
for  indirect  losses, 
v  not  r('(piire  sonul 
Tor  the  guidance  oil 

s  were  presented  tol 
)»ore  di'JinitoH'ss  oj 

'lican  (Commission 
if  OiUiada  ■were  saidl 
II  raids." 

"(ilaims,"  and  nrei 
khich  a>  specilic  (h' 
])r()iK)S('d  for  c()ii| 

before"  tlie  Hijjli 
[^gotiatorssaidtliutl 

t  was  not  until  the| 


;s 


s 


3ril  of  May  that  they  said  that  "they  would  not  urge  further  that  the 
settlement  of  these  claims  should  be  included  in  the  present  Treaty, 
\nd  that  they  had  the  less  diflBculty  in  doing  so,  as  a  portion  of  the 
Claims  were  of  a  constructive  and  inferential  character." 

Tims  while  the  American  indirect  losses  were  only  nientioned  once, 
uid  then  as  it  were  incidentally,  the  Fenian  raid  claims  were  repeatedly 
uid  formally  presented,  and  when  their  withdrawal  from  the  negotiation 
ivas  agreed  to  at  its  close,  it  was  with  a  remark  which  could  have  had  no 
|ust  hearing,  had  not  it  been  believed  that  all  constructive  and  conse- 
jnential  claims  had  been  withdrawn  and  excluded  on  the  American 
side  also. 

jMr.  Fish  expresses  doubts  as  to  the  points  raised  in  my  letter  of  the 
2()th  of  IMarch,  that  the  Washington  Claims  Commissioners  have,  and 
the  Arbitrators  have  not,  power  to  decide  upon  the  extent  of  their  own 
jurisdiction,  and  that  no  words  similar  to  those  conferring  that  power 
pre  to  be  found  in  the  articles  relating  to  the  Geneva  Arbitration. 

It  will  be  seen,  on  comparing  the  Treaty  of  Washington  with  the 

lainis  Convention  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  of  the 
^tli  of  Februarj',  1853,  that  the  words  which  I  had  quoted  from  the 

;iVth  Article  of  the  former  are  identical  with  the  words  used  in  the 
lllrd  Article  of  the  latter,  under  which  the  Claims  Commissioners  were 
pini)0wered  to  give,  aiul  did  undoubtedly  give,  decisions  as  to  the  ex- 
toiit  of  their  jurisdiction ;  as,  for  instance,  in  the  claims  for  Texas 
:)ouds  of  James  Holford's  executors,  and  Philip  Dawson,  and  for  Florida 
^londs  of  Heneage  W.  Dering,  and  in  other  cases. — (See  Senate  Execu- 
tive Documents,  No.  103,  34tli  Congress,  1st  Session,  pp.  03,64.) 

The  Articles  engaging  to  consider  the  results  of  the  proceedings  of 
Jthe  Tribunal,  and  of  the  Claims  Commission  respectively,  as  final  settle- 
ments, Articles  XI  and  XVII,  are  also  adopted  from  the  Convention  of 
1853,  Article  V ;  and  had  it  been  desired  to  give  the  same  powers  of 
(urisdiction  to  the  Arbitrators  as  to  the  Commissioners,  a  clause  similar 
to  that  in  the  XlVtli  Article  would  have  been  inserted  to  express  it. 

In  the  absence  of  such  a  clause  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Arbitrators  re- 
^tiains  restricted  to  the  particular  claims  "  known  as  Alabama  claims," 
submitted  to  them  in  Article  I. 

ller  Majesty's  (ioveriiment  cajuiot  admit  that  a  power,  which,  when 

\t  is  designed  to  be  given  to  the  Chiints  Commissioners  in  one  part  of 

the  Treaty  is  given  in  express  words,  can  be  inferentially  assumed  to 

JO  given  in  another  part  of  the  Treaty  to  the  Arbitrators,  by  assigning 

[i broad  signification  to  the  term  "question  "  in  the  Ilnd  Article. 

The  questions  which  the  Arbitrators  are  to  examine  and  decide  are 
|[)bviously  all  questions  that  may  be  laid  before  them  by  tlu^  res[)ective 
liovernments,  in  preferring  and  refuting  the  particular  claims  on  which 
iieir  judgment  is  re(puvsted,  and  the  Article  must  be  read  in  connection 
hvithtlie  succeeding  Articles  III,  IV,  and  V,  provi<ling  how  the  (Jases, 
roiinter-Cases,  evidence,  and  arguments  are  to  b(^  brought  before  them. 

^Ir.  Fish  cannot  mean  that  the  Arbitrators  may  decide  "  any  (pies- 
(ions"  not  coming  within  the  terms  of  the  refereiu;e  to  the  Tribunal.  If 
that  were  to  be  the  case,  Her  IMajesty's  (Jovernment  might  bring  foi*- 
[ward  as  a  set-otVagainst  the  "Alabama  claims"  the  questions  of  the  injury 
lone  to  Ihitish  trade  by  the  blockade,  or  the  Fenian  raids,  or  jtossibly 
itlier  (piestions.  In  siiort,  a  scope  would  be  given  to  tln^  Arbitration 
t\vlii('h  the  United  States  Government  could  not  have  contemplated,  and 
[AvouM  iirobably  be  unwilling  to  admit. 

.Air.  l-'isli  states  that  "  the  United   States  caliidy  submitted  to  the 
Jonimission  the  decision  of  its  jurisdiction  "  over  the  Cotton  Loan  claims  j 


n 


f:Hmi 

■'^i. •'.';.  Ml" 


■.Kj^^hv 


'    ■;    '»'  ■■„■  X 

!•■',•  ,    .<:'  r  .4 

■"■■>•'.■-,'.  "•'H,' 


-•*•!  .■   ■    ■  i 


92 


CORRKSPONDEN'CE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


but  this  statement  does  not  appear  to  be,  at  all  borne  out  by  the  "  Argii,| 
ment  for  the  United  States  on  motion  to  dismiss"  these  claims. 

The  United  States  a^ent  moved  for  the  dismissal  of  the  claim,  asi 
not  beiiiff  included  under  the  Treaty,  and  ])lainly  notified  that  the) 
United  States  refused  to  permit  it  to  be  considered  as  included  ;  his  ar  [ 
gument  being  that  there  was  a  constitutional  provision  which  prevented) 
the  payment  of  tjucli  claims,  that  this  was  known  to  the  American  Comf 
missioners  when  negotiating  tlie  Treaty,  to  the  American  Government | 
when  acceptinj;  it,  and  to  the  Senate  wiien  ratifying  it,  and  that  it  was 
impossible  for  tlic  United  States  to  pay  or  to  consider  the  (]uestion  ot| 
paying  the  claims. 

"It  must  be  borne  in  mind,"  he  said,  "  that  at  the  time  of  this  eorl 
respondence,  as  well  as  at  the  time  of  the  conclusion  and  ratification  ofj 
the  Treaty,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  contained  an  express 
l)rohibition  of  the  assumption  or  payment  of  these  debts  by  the  United  I 
States  or  by  any  State.  That  every  officer  of  the  United  States,  execu- j 
tive,  legislative,  and  judicial,  was  tluis  bound  by  the  supreme  lawof  thp| 
land  and  by  his  oath  of  office  to  treat  as  utterly  null  any  pi'ovision  ofj 
any  Treaty  o?  statute  in  contravention  of  that  constitutional  prohibi] 
tion,  under  penalty  of  impeachment  or  its  equivalent." 

The  agent  concluded  by  asking  "the  dismission  of  the  claim  on  tlie| 
ground  specified  in  his  motion." 

In  short,  he  i)ositively  declared  that  no  award  unfavourable  to  tliej 
United  States  would,  or  could,  have  been  accepted  and  ])aid. 

There  are  several  other  statements  made  by  Mr.  Fish  which  are  I 
open  to  reply,  but  I  have  considered  it  sufficient,  for  the  purposes  of  this  I 
despatch,  toconfine  my  comments  to  those  which  bear  mere  immediately  [ 
on  the  negotiation  an«l  interpretation  of  the  Treaty. 
I  am,  &e., 

GRANVILLE. 


No.  37. 


General  i<ehenclc  to  Mr.  Fiah. 
rExtriict.l 


No.  22,>.J 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  Mmj  14,  1S72.  (Ileceivcd  May  27.) 

Sir  :  Since  my  No.  210  on  the  2d  instant,  our  correspondence  by  tele^ 
graph  has  been  so  constant  and  full,  that  i  nuist  refer  to  that  mainly  j 
for  a  connected  history  of  what  has  transjjircd. 

It  would  be  vain  to  attempt  to  give  anything  like  a  detailed  .account  of| 
what  passed  or  was  said  in  the  almost  daily  interviews  and  conversations, 
and  sometimes  much  oftener  than  daily,  and  often  lasting  ^or  honi!* 
at  a  time,  which  took  place  between  Lord  Granville  and  me.    1  sought,! 
as  my  telegrams  will  show,  to  keep  you  continually,  regularly,  and  clear  T 
ly  int'ornu'd  as  to  results,  and  witli  my  last  desi>atch  (No.  221)  I  fiii' 
wished  you  coi)ies  of  all  the  notes  and  written  nuitter  which  came  to | 
me  with  the  new  Treaty  article  proposed  by  this  Government. 

I'erhaps,  however,  1  (.'unnot  better  report  or  explain  to  you  tlie  man- 


ARBITRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


93 


leoiit  by  the  "  Argii.| 
these  claims. 
5sal  of  tlie  claim,  asl 
ly  iiotiflod  that  the| 
as  inclmkd  ;  his  ar 
^ioii  which  pre  vol  I  tod  I 
)  the  American  Comj 
nericaii  Governmout) 
j;'  it,  and  that  it  was! 
sider  the  qnestiou  of) 

he  time  of  this  corl 
>n  and  ratification  ofj 
contained  an  express! 
debts  by  the  United  I 
Jnited  States,  execuj 
e  supreme  law  of  thpl 
idl  any  provision  of| 
ustitntional  prohibi- 
snt." 
of  the  claim  on  tliel 

nn  favourable  to  tliel 

and  ])aid. 
Mr.  Fish  which  are  I 
V  the  purposes  of  this  [ 
ear  mo  re  immediately 


GRANVILLE. 


TES, 

[leceived  May  27.) 
jspoiulenco  by  tele^ 
L'fer  to  that  mainly] 

I  detailed  account  of  I 
and  conversations,! 
Ii  lasti'ig  <')r  honrs| 
land  me.    1  sou<«lit, 
|e]iiularly.  and  clear 
Ich  (No."  liL'l)  I    till- 
Iter  which  came  to] 
rernment. 
In  to  yon  tlu;  iiinii' 


nor  and  spirit  with  which  I  sought  to  present  and  urge  the  views  of  our 
Llovernment  in  this  contention  about  the  i)resentation  of  the  claims  for 
indirect  danniges,  than  by  forwarding  to  you  the  annexed  copy  of  iv 
paper  which  1  read  to  Lord  Granville  on  the  morning  of  the  lOth  instant, 
IJy  referring  to  my  several  telegrams  of  the  9th,  you  will  observe  that 
|at  tiie  end  of  that  day,  it  seemed  as  if  all  hoi»o  of  agreement  between 
the  two  Governments  must  be  given  np.  Her  Majesty's  Government 
had  expressed  their  decision  against  the  suggestion  of  a  new  article  as 
|a  mode  of  settlement,  and  I  had  informed  them  that  no  note  could  be  ac- 
Iccpted  by  the  President  aiul  assented  to,  which  did  not  embody  thecondi- 
Itions  exi)ressed  in  your  telegram  of  the  27th  of  April. 

But  early  next  morning  came  the  message  from  Lord  Granville  ask- 
luig  me  to  telegraph  you  immediately  that  a  Cabinet  would  be  held 
jtbut  day,  and  that  he  wished  me  to  meet  him  afterwards.        *        * 

I  (lid  not  wait  for  the  conclusion  of  the  Cabinet  meeting,  but  sought 
|]jord  Granville  almost  immediately  at  the  Foreign  Office.    I  had  nnide 
lup  my  mind  to  present  once  more  to  His  Lordship,  as  briefiy  and  yet  as 
Iclearly  as  I  could,  a  sun\mary  statement  of  the  views  of  my  Government, 
land  tiie  position,  as  I  understood  it,  of  the  question  between  us.    I  had 
Ito  this  end  very  hastily  prepared  myself  by  reducing  what  I  had  to  say 
Ito  him  to  writing,  in  order  that  there  might  be  no  misunderstanding 
I  afterwards  of  the  points  advanced,  or  of  my  language.    This  was  the 
l»aper  of  which    I  send    you    a    copy.    Lord   Granville   came  out  of 
Cabinet  to  meet  me.    I  read  it  to  him,  and  placed  as  much  of  it  as  was 
J  copied  in  his  hands.    I  afterwards  furnished  him  a  full  cop3\    He  replied 
at  once  verbally  by  informing  me  that  Her  Majesty's  Government 
would  ])robably  conclude  to  take  the  initiative  and  propose  a  treaty 
jartiole,  in  which  case  the  proposal,  in  such  form  as  it  might  be  a^'reed  to 
lotrer  it,  would  be  communii^ated  to  me  after  the  Cabinet  had  decided ;  and 
laiterwards,  on  that  day,  the  proposed  article  was  delivered  to  me.    If 
niy  summing  up  that  morning  did  not  contribute  towards  bringing  this 
conclusion  to  the  correspondence  and  discussion,  at  least  it  did  not  pre- 
vent this  Government  from  concurring  in  what  I  regarded  as  the  only 
|ert'ective  form  of  adjustment  which  appeared  to  remain  to  us. 

It  is  not  forme  to  comment  now  on  the  merits  of  this  plan  of  adjust- 
|nient  which  has  been  placed  before  the  Senate  for  consideratioti.     Be- 
torc  this  despatch  can  reach  you,  that  body  will  probably"  have  advised 
Itlie  President  to  accede  to  it,  or  will  have  refused  its  assent.    I  sincerely 
trust  that  the  f(n"mer  will  be  the  decision    arrived  at.    This  I  venture 
to  say,  not  from  a  desire  nuM'ely  to  ado])t  what  seems  to  be  perhaps 
the  only  remaining  chance  of  preserving  a  treaty  so   important  to  the 
nicace  and  interests,  of  the  two  countries,  but  because  1  think  the  [)riin'ii>h' 
jileclared  in  this  article  for  future  ob.jorvance  between  the  two  nations  is 
one  which  if  settled  and  maintained  mast  be  of  im\stiniable  advantage 
I  to  the  United  States.   With  our  chances  of  being  generally  neutral  when 
[tlreat  Britain  and  other  Euroi)eau  States  are  ln'Uigerent,  the  benelits  of 
tliernleare  to  I'c  i)rincipally  and  oftcnest  ours.    Our  continental  position, 
our  exteiuled  seaco»st,  our  numerous  ports,  the  (juter[>rising  charact(.'r 
of  our  citizens,  and  Mie  ditliculty  of  restraining  their  si)irit  of  adven- 
ture, surely  make  the  rule  that  would  thus  be  establishe(l  more  valiinl))*' 
;iinl  more  favoiable  to  the  United  States  tliau  to  perhai"  ■  iH'.V  otiier 
country. 

All  this  we  secure  in  exchaugo  lor  Ih-,'  sui'render  of  ('(M'tain  claims 
wliich  we  were  I iressing  before  the  Arbitrators  at  (jcneva,  not  with  a 
view  to  pecuniary  compensation,  but  only  because  they  were  a  ]iortion 
of  the  grounds  of  disagree  neut  between   us  and  (Jreat  Britain,   upon 


M 


Mi 

II 


Ij 

m 

i 


m 


1 

:^ 

m 

1 

Is 

J 

M 

I'll 


Ii 

1 


\  .v; 
iJ    V.'o    " 


'■  -i  ■ 


'.•'1;  ■  ■•'  .:'    •  ■ 


■1'^; 


■       ■         ■      if  -i  >' 


:  :<-. 


i> '».r;v;.v;;.,,. 


■  ■.f  ,^  ■'■ 


I. 


'*  -^--. 

■*::■» 


04: 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 


whicli  tliat  Tribunal  was  empowered,  for  the  sake  of  perfect  peace,  tol 

inako  an  award,  while  we  ourselves  did  not  hesitate  to  admit  that  itl 

must  be  to  our  gain  to  have  the  decision  against  us.         *  •        ♦I 

J  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

KOBT.  C.  S(;ilENCK. 
Uon.  Hamilton  Fish,. 

i^ecretnry  of  >S7rt/( ,    Washington^  D.  C. 


[Inclosure  in  No.  ^7.] 

Sunvnnnj  of  vicim  of  the  United  States  on  the  indireet  claims  rend  by  (Jen-\ 
eral  SchencTc  to  Earl  Granville  on  May  10, 1872. 

General  Sehenck,  in  an  interview  with  Lord  Granville,  summed  upi 
what  he  regarded  as  the  present  position  of  the  question  between  thel 
two  Governments  in  the  following  remarks,  which  he  had  reduced  to| 
writing  to  prevent  misunderstanding  of  his  views  or  language : 

When  we  parted,  after  our  long  conversation  yesterday,  j'our  lastl 
words  to  me  were  these :  "  I  carefully  avoid  anything  that  may  btl 
construed  into  menace,  but  in  consequence  of  the  views  and  inforraationl 
you  have  presented  to  me  yesterday  and  today  I  take  an  unfavorable! 
view  of  the  chances  of  settlement."  Those  words  I  felt  it  my  duty  to| 
telegraph  last  night,  as.  I  told  you  I  would,  to  my  Government,  and 
added  to  them,  "I  told  Lord  Granville  that  1  was  of  the  same  mind." 

It  was  painful  to  me  beyond  expression  to  have  to  do  this — a  gravel 
thing  to  iiave  to  believe  that  the  result  of  all  the  labor  and  care  whidij 
led  to  the  making  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington — the  end  of  all  the  hopes! 
which  it  had  inspired  for  the  future  of  our  two  countries,  and  for  the! 
cause  of  civilization  and  the  nations — was  to  be  but  failure,  disappoint  [ 
ment,  and  estrangement,  instead  of  success,  close  and  lasting  friendshiiJ 
and  peace.    I  have  not  slept  well  on  that  conclusion  to  our  interview. 

If  this  be  the  end,  then  I  am  well  aware  that  each  Governmeiitj 
will,  in  one  form  or  another,  present  its  exi)lanation  to  the  world,  alll 
the  States  and  peoples  of  which,  it  is  no  exaggeration  to  say,  are  waitiiigl 
the  issue  of  our  attempts  to  come  to  a  good  understanding ;  and  eaclil 
party  will  naturally  seek  to  justify  itself  and  to  throw  the  blame  on  tliel 
other. 

This  must  be  my  excuse,  at  the  risk  of  too  much  repetition,  for  one  I 
more  effort,  whicli  must  now,  in  this  pressure  of  time,  be  hastily  and 
imperfectly  made,  to  present  the  views  and  position  of  my  Govern- 1 
ment  in  relation  to  the  points  on  which  we  so  unfortunately  (litter. 

The  difflculty  has  its  root  entirely  in  the  opposing  interpretations  given  | 
to  the  Treaty  by  the  two  Governments. 

The  United  States  understand  that  it  was  the  intention  of  that  in 
strument  to  provide  a  mode  for  the  settlement,  wiping  away,  and  blot 
ting  out  forever  of  all  claims  against  Great  IJritain  growing  out  of  thel 
acts  of  the  Alabama  and  other  such  cruisers ;  and  they  claim  therefore  to 
put  forward,  and  have  put  forward,  in  their  Case  before  the  Arbitrators, 
the  whole  of  their  demands  for  damages,  direct  and  indirect.    This  they  I 
insist  they  may  rightfully  do  ;  and  that  they  are  entitled  to  ask  and  ex- 
pect of  tiie  Arbitrators  a  decision  as  to  each  class  of  claims,  as  to  its  I 
admissibility  before  the  Tribunal  for  consideration  in  the  lirst  instance.  | 
and  if  .adjudged  admissible,  then  such  award  as  that  High  International 
Court  constituted  by  the  Treaty  may  think  it  just  within  the  scoi)eot| 
their  powers  to   make.      But  the  United  States  have  not  desired  or 
expected  any  award  of  compensation  from  Great  Britain  for  the  indi- 
rect damages.    They  have  even  been  free  to  admit  in  advance  that  it 
Mould  be  better  for  their  future  advantage  and  tlie  interest  of  nations! 


BITRATION. 

f  i)erfect  pi^aco,  tol 

a  to  admit  that  itl 

#  »         t| 

ant, 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


95 


:laims  rend  by  (Jen-\ 
',  1872. 

uville,  summed  upl 

jstioii  between  the! 

he  had  reduced  to| 

language : 

jsterday,  jour  last  I 

thing  that  may  bel 

ws  and  information  j 

ke  an  unfavorable! 

felt  it  my  duty  tol 

jrovernment,  andl] 

the  same  mind." 

0  do  this — a  gravel 

or  and  care  whiclil 

;nd  of  all  the  hopes  j 

itries,  and  for  tliej 

failure,  disappointj 

lasting  friendship, [ 

to  our  interview. 

each  Governmeiitl 

to  the  Avorld,  all! 

tosay,  arewaitingj 

nding  ;  and  each  I 

the  blame  on  the 


[epetition,  for  one  I 
it>,  be  hastily  aiidj 
»u  of  my  Govern- 1 
iiately  (liffer. 
^rpretationsgiveiil 

tention  of  that  in 

K  away,  and  blot  [ 

lowing  out  of  the! 

;laim  theretbreto 

the  Arbitrators,  I 
lirect.    This  the.v 
led  to  ask  and  oxj 

claims,  as  to  it^| 
Ihe  first  instance. 
]gh  Internationiil 

liin  the  scope  otl 
not  desired  oij 
lain  for  the  indi- 

advance  that  it  I 

terest  of  nations 


ienerally  that  the  Judgment  of  the  Arbitrators  should  be  adverse  to 
fhat  class  of  claims.  VVhat  they  contend  for  is  the  right  under  the 
Treaty  to  submit  them  for  consideration,  as  a  known  part  of  their 
jeinaiids  against  Great  Britain;  and  that  it  is  important  to  both  coun- 
tries and  in  the  interest  of  peace  and  good  feeling  that  every  question 
[u  regard  to  such  claims  should  be  solemnly  considered  and  passed  upon, 
^0  that  they  may  disappear  forever. 

Great  Britain  maiutain.s  that  it  is  not  within  the  meaning  and  inten- 
[ion  of  the  Treaty  that  such  claims  should  be  placed  before  tlie  Tribunal, 
)r  that  they  come  within  the  province  of  the  Arbitrators  to  consider  and 
iceide  upon. 

The  long  argumentative  discussion  of  this  i)oint  has  ended  unfortu- 
lately  in  neither  party  being  able  to  convince  the  other  of  the  sound- 
less of  its  interpretation. 

Each  is  bound  to  admit  good  faith  and  fair  intention  in  the  other. 

Hoth  nations  desire  mutual  and  cordial  friendship. 

Both  are  earnestly  and  sincerely  desirous  to  maintain  the  Treaty. 

Some  other  way  out  of  the  difficulty,  therefore,  must  be  found  if  these 
jbjects  are  to  be  attained. 

Anticipating  this  irreconcilable  disagreement  on  the  point  of  inter- 
jietation,  various  expedients  were  suggested  as  i)robable  means  for 
escape  from  the  dilemma,  even  before  the  conclusion  of  the  discussion 
liad  hecn  reached ;  but  none  of  these  suggestions  were  adopted  or  acted 
911,  and  it  is  now  unnecessary  to  revive  or  refer  to  them. 

At  the  last,  in  consequence  of  a  conversation  between  himself  and 
^he  British  Minister  at  Washington,  Mr.  Fish  was  led  to  believe  that 

ler  ]\Iajesty's  Government  might  make  a  proposal  to  the  effect  that  they 
[would  >;ngage  that  in  the  future,  should  Great  Britain  be  a  belligerent 
ind  the  United  States  neutral,  and  should  there  be  any. failure  on  the 
lart  of  the  United  States  to  observe  their  neutral  obligations,  Great 
Britain  will  make  or  advance  no  claims  against  the  United  States  by 
reason  or  on  account  of  any  indirect,  remote,  or  consequential  results  of 
Buch  failure,  and  that,  in  consideration  of  such  stipulation,  the  United 
states  shall  not  press  for  a  pecuniary  award  of  damages  before  the 
peueva  Tribunal  on  account  of  the  claims,  respecting  which  Great  Brit- 
lin  hr  ,  expressed  the  opinion  that  they  are  not  included  in  the  submis- 
sion, V  iz :  the  transfer  of  the  American  shipping,  increased  insurance, 
uul  tlie  prolongation  of  the  war.  If  such  a  proposal  shouhl  be  made  by 
flic  British  Government  they  were  informed  that  the  Preside  '  would 
issent  to  it.  But  it  was  to  be  understood  that  there  was  no  withdrawal 
rf  any  part  of  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  but  an  agreement  not  to 
lloiiiaiid  (lamage;:5  on  account  of  those  i)articular  claims,  leaving  the 
Cribiuial  to  make  such  expression  of  opinion  as  it  might  think  proper 
hn  tliat  question.  A  comnnuiication  to  this  effect  was  made  to  the  Brit- 
ish (Jovcriiment,  and  a  form  of  a  note  was  given  me  containing  in  some 
Sort  a  proposal  of  this  kind  to  be  submitted  to  my  (Jovernment,  but  it  was 
IToiuul  to  be  in  so  many  essential  jtaniculars  different  from  the  sugges- 
tion which  was  understood  to  have  been  made  by  Sir  Edward  Thornton, 
ukI  which  had  commended  itself  to  Mr.  Fish,  that  it  was  not  assented 
to  by  the  President,  a  modilication  of  this  note  was  subsequently  made, 
|iuul  it  was  submitted  in  an  amended  form. 

The  moditied  note  omitted  or  changed  s()ni(>  portion  of  wi  at  was 
|i)bjectionable  in  the  lirst  proimsal,  but  was  still  so  far  short  of  what  is 
consistent  with  the  views  and  position  of  the  United  States  that  it 
[could  not  be  accepted. 

The  grounds  of  objection  to  the  proposal  as  framed  and  presented  by 
this  note  1  will  hereafter  state. 


'V+ 


■  ■•■' '  '■ 


rrrp'.-- 


COKRESPONDLVCE    RESPECTINQ    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 

TIk'ic  v,;».^  then  a  SMp.^estion  luaileto  IIiu'  Majesty's  Govern inoii I  tliii 
tlioir  i)roj)osiil  mi^^lit  b;;  submitted  in  the  shape  of  a  new  article  to 
a(l(k«l  to  the  Treaty  of  \V'«sliiii<rton.    This  woiihl  ctVeetually  bin  1  IxjtJ 
nations  lor  the  future  to  the  observance  of  the  rule  wliicsh  they  niighj 
ajjree  on,  and  wouhl  reniove,  if  i)r<)perly  and  carefully  fianied,  all  ohjcc 
tions  made  to  an  interchange  of  notes  as  a  secure  and  ettective  iiioiUm 
reacliing  the  object  in  view. 

Hut  Her  ^rajesty'sdovernnient,  it  is  iniderstood,  alfogether  decliiio,(J 
have-thus  far  declined,  to  open  any  negotiation  to  detint*  by  treaty  tliil 
extent  or  limit  of  the  r  oonsibility  of  a  i.eutral  to  a  belligerent  for  iiidij 
reet  or  eonse(]uential  «  ages.  T  deeply  regret  this,  and  my  (lovornj 
ment  regrets  it;  ami  1  will  proceed  to  explain  i)resently  wherein  it  i| 
tl'.ought  a  treaty  stipulatio);  !••»»  an  advantage  over  any  other  form 
agreement,  and  onglit  to  be  desired  by  both  i)arties. 

JJut  to  return  to  the  (lifhculty — nay,  the  impossibility — of  adjusting  tbil 
disagreement  by  an  interchange  of  notes,  if  we  must  adoj)t  the  foriJ 
and  substance  of  the  proposal  oll'ered  in  that  shape  by  the  British  Gov] 
eiament.    In  the  first  place,  that  proposal,  ns  Great  Britain  appears tj 
be  only  willing  to  present  it,  either  dire(!tly  stipulates  for,  or  implies,) 
withdrawal  or  abandonment  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  of  tliJ 
indirect  claims ;  that  is,  to  regard  and  treat  theni  as  eliminated  i'romtliJ 
<'.ase  presented  to  the  Arbitrators,  and  not  to  be  in  any  way  considerel 
or  adjudged  as  the  subject  of  award  by  the  Tribunal.    The  Jiritish  Gov! 
ernment  holds — notwithstanding  th*'.  principle  that  every  tribunal  niiisT 
necessarily,  by  its  very  cieation,  possess  an  inherent  right  and  power  ti 
de'iido  questions  relating  to  its  own  jurisdiction,  considering  {nevitabljj 
ant'  at  the  very  thiashold  whether  a  matter  brought  before  it  is  or  is  iioj 
one  tf  which  it  can  take  cognizance — the  British  Government  holds  thai 
the  Arbitrators  cannot  look  at  the  indirect  claims  even  for  tlie  i)urposJ 
of  determining  that  they  are  iiuidmissible.    This  is  not  overstsiting  tlifi 
position,  extravagant  as  it  may  seem,  when  they  maintain  that  umW 
the  Treaty  the  United  States  had  no  right  to  put  such  claims  forward  ii 
their  Case.    But  the  United  States  not  only  maintains  that  the  moil 
tioning  and  putting  forward  of  these  claims  is  rightful,  with  a  view  tJ 
obtaining  a  judgment  as  to  their  admissibility,  but  also  hold  that  it  Viii 
the  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Treaty  that  they  should  be  submitted  foj 
whatever  they  may  be  worth,  even  if  this  has  to  be  done  only  with  \ 
view  to  get  rid  of  them  as  a  cause  of  ditl'erence  and  complaint  betwwij 
the  two  countries. 

Now,  the  I*resident  of  the  United  States,  acting  through  his  agent  a| 
Geneva,  can  i)ut  forward,  withhold,  (u*  withdraw  such  portion  of  tli| 
claims  as  he  may  think  ])roper.    That  is  not  denied.     But  if  any  of  X\m 
claims  are  contemi)lated  and  intended  by  the  Treaty  itself  for  suhiiiij| 
iSion,  such  withholding  or  withdrawing  of  them  by  the  President  ale 
is  not  an  extinguishment  of  them.    The  power  of  the  1  resident  of  tlil 
United  States  is  limited  by  the  Constitution.     He  cannot  of  hiit.siij 
make  a  treaty;  nor  can  he  alter,  abridge,  or  dei)art  irom  the  spirit  o| 
intention  of  a  treaty.    To  do  that  recjuires  the  assent,  advice,  and  coi 
currenee  of  the  Senate.     If  the  Treaty  submits  tliese  claims,  as  he  is  (i| 
opinion  it  clearly  does,  to  the  consi(l(>rati(»n  of  the  Tribunal,  then  " 
putting  them  into  the  Case,  or  his  taking  them  out  of  the  Case,  does  noi 
dispose  of  them.     If  they  are  withdra'.vn   by  him,  they  are  only  liiil 
away,  preserved  perhaps  to  be  a  future  ])lague,  unsettled;  kept  as; 
po>ssible  source  of  irritation  and  complaint.    They  can  be  extinguish(il 
only  by  some  judgment  of  the  i)reseribed  Tribunal  api)()inted  for  tlicij 
consideration,  or  by  being  given  up  through  the  action  of  the  wliolj 


ARBITRATION. 


CORHKSPONDENCl']    RE.SPP:CTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


97 


y'sGovcriimeul  tlij 
a  now  sii'ticle  to  b] 
otlectuiilly  bin  1  hotj 
le  whicJi  they  niiglij 
lly  IVhukmI,  all  ol^jet 
uul  ett'cctivo  nio(l(.i( 

nlfo{;othor  (looliiie,(ii 
define  by  treaty  tli 
I  belligerent  Tor  iiiilij 
liis,  and  my  Govornl 
lisently  wherein  it  iJ 
er  any  other  form  o| 

ity — of  adjnstinstbJ 
uust  adoj)t  tlie  forij 
)  by  the  liritish  Gov] 
lit  Britain  appears  tJ 
Ltos  for,  or  implies,/ 
Jnited  States  of  tliJ 
:i  eliminated  fromtlij 
1  any  wav  considerel 
il.    The  British  Gov! 
-  every  tribunal  iiiusif 
it  right  and  power  t 
)nsiderinf;:  inevitablj| 
t  before  it  is  or  is  iioi 
)vernment  holds  thai 
even  for  tljo  purposi 
not  overstating  t\m 
maintain  that  uiidtif 
ch  claims  forward  ij 
tains  that  the  inoiil 
tful,  with  a  view  il 
ilso  hold  that  it  wi 
lid  be  siibnxitted  foi 
»e  done  only  with 
complaint  betwod 

hrough  his  agent  iij 
■»nch  itortion  of  tli| 
liut  if  any  of  tlus 
I y  itself  for  subniiJ 
the  President  iiloiil 
le  1  resident  of  till 
cannot  of  hiiiisii 
t  from  the  sjarit  oi 
lit,  advice,  and  cuiij 
clnims,  as  he  is 
Tribunal,  then  liij 
the  Case,  does  mil 
they  are  oidy  lai| 
settled  ;  kept  ;is ; 
an  be  extinguishpil| 
ippointed  for  thcii 
iction  of  the  wliolil 


i.;ity-!iiaking  power  exenrising  its  constitutional  fuiu-tions  in  behalf  of 
Ic  nation. 

Tims  you  should  (dearly  see  the  reason  why  the  President  may  be 

It'  to  agrees  not  to  press  for  a  money-award  on  claims  which  he 
[yards  as  now  before  the  Tribumd,  but  to  leave  them  to  be  dlsjmsed 

Or  comnuMited  on  by  the  Arl)itrators,  while  he  refuses  to  withdi-aw 
[iciii  as  not  being  proi)erly  a  sid)ject  for  their  (consideration. 
ITImmc  is  objection,  too,  to  the  substance  of  the  proposal  nmde  in  the 
jritisii  note.  The  engagement,  to  be  of  value  in  the  future,  should 
I' i(M'i|>ro('al.  The  note  i)rofesses  to  make  it  so;  but  how  ?  The  offer 
Ilcr  .Alajesty's  doveinment  is  to  agree  that  the  view  whi(rh  they- 

ivc  iieretofore  ])resented  of  snch  indirect  claims  shall  be  their  prin 
Iplc  of  future  a(!tion  and  comluct;  and  that  at  any  time  when  the 
[iiitcd  States  may  be  a  neutral,  and  Great  Britain  a  belligerent,  slu;  will 
lot  advance  any  claims  in(!onsistent  with  that  princi[>le. 

This  i><  vague;  and  yet  it  is  limited  and  narrow. 

It  is  a  vague  undertaking  to  promise  generally  to  adhere  to  a  ''  view'- 

a  "  principle,"  when  there  must  be  a  search  to  ascertain  what  that 
lew  is,  or  i)rinciple  is;  and  it  is  a  narrow  uiulertaking  which  confines 
|self  to  an  abnegation  of  the  right  to  pursiu^  certain  specific  classes 

uaiuages,  when  the  particular  kinds  of  injury  out  of  which  those 
[images  may  arise  are  only  to  be  deternuned  by  comparison.  There 
iionld  be  general  words  of  description,  and  a  clear  enunciation  of 
liiHciple,  in  any  rule  that  is  to  serve  as  a  law  of  action,  instead  of  a 

I'orenc  e  only  to  special  cases  that  have  before  o(!curred  ;  because  no 
\{o  cases  can  ever  be  exactly  sinular.  A  rule  depending  for  its  appli- 
ition  only  on  tests  of  comparison  w<ndd  br(;ed  disputes  inst(nid  of 
?moving  them. 

A  tr<»aty  stipulation  might  be  made  free  of  all  these  objections. 

lu  the  first  place  there  (lould  be  no  question  about  its  mutually  bind- 
jg  for(!e;  and  in  the  next  place,  being  the  Joint  concurrent  declaration 
I"  the  two  parties  to  it,  reduced  to  a  single  form  of  expression,  it  would 
five  a  i)recision  not  likely  to  be  found  in  a  co'.';ation  or  comparison  of 
le  several  notes  embraced  in  a  dii)lomatic  correspoiulence. 

Great  Britain  has  not  merely  denied  the  right  of  the   Unit(Hl  States 

pat  forward  the  indirect  claims  be(!ause  she  denies  that  the  Treaty 

limits  of  any  construction  winch  will  authorize  their  being  considered 

ly  tlie  Tribunal.    She  has  also  taken  the  alternative  view,  that  if,  by 

?ason  of  any  ambiguity  in  the  Treaty,  or  any  i)ossible  interi)retation 

it,  such  claims  could  be  brought  forward  by  the  United  States,  it  is 
lot  to  be  sui)p()sed  for  a  nu)ment  that  she  ever  intemled  to  agree  to  sub- 
lit  to  arbitration  demands  upon  her  of  such  character  and  nature  that 
[ley  might  be  dangerous  to  the  very  existence  of  any  nation,  and  make 
|ie  condition  of  a  neutral  possibly  worse  than  that  of  a  belligerent. 

To  insist  that  the  Treaty  is  so  clear  in  its  terms  as  in  no  sense  to 
kliiiit  of  the  American  interiiretation,  is  only  going  back  to  and  beg- 
liiig  the  (piestion  which  l:as  been  fruitlessly  discussed.  But  if  it  be  so 
loar  in  the  meaning,  then  Great  JU-itain,  by  snch  a  treaty  stipulation, 
V'ldiiig  nothing,  giving  no  ccmsideration,  wmdd  secure  immunity  for 
lie  future  against  a  class  of  claims  which  she  asserts  to  be  always  dau- 
loi'oiis  and  ini[>roper  to  be  made. 

Bat,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  Treaty  does  admit  of  the  American 

ltcr[»retation,  (.Jreat  Britain  would  obtain  that  immunity  for  the  future 

|ot  only  without  cost  or  sacrifice,  but  with  the  additional  advantage  of 

Kcapiitg  fioai  an  obligation  in  which,  she  avers,  in  that  case,  she  was 

|ii\\ittingly  drawn,  and  which  she  regards  as  so  dangerous  that,  if  it 

7  G  A 


M 


I 


nil 


il 
I 


,''1  ...    ■ 


•■T'- 


■■  'J-  '.■;  ;..* 


im 

N' 

r  •>■ 

t    « 

; '  f 

.3ft 

■  '  ' 

" 

■  'U 

,f.  ■*; 

* 

i'    •I 


C0RRKSP0M)1:N'CE  kksphcting  gexkva  akfjitration. 


(Iocs  exist,  she  would  ruHior  ii'pmliiite  a  solmiii'   treiity  lliaii  abide  [ 
\vlsat  sill'  lias  done. 

What,  tlii'U,  is  it  that  (iivat  l>vitaiii  >vill  inaiii  if  a  lunv  article im'scii! 
ing  a  riilo  a^naiiist  claims  for  i':.lirc(  t  daiua<;cs  be  added  to  the  Treahl 
She  will  have  the  Treaty  '■.  ith  all  its  bi  ;H'lits  to  her,  as  it  now  stiimil 
remain  intact.     Slie  will  be  relieved  from  tiu;  respimsibility  on   thcmj 
hand  of  answerin;^  to  any  award  a;;'aiiist  her  which   may  be  mado  I 
the  Arbitrators  in  case  the  Amoriiran  interpretation  is  snstaine  1,  iiiidi 
the  other  from  tiie  deplorable  alternative  of  abro^atini;'  her  ownsolcii 
act.     And  she  will  obtain  formal  and  cei  tain  security  for  the  future  tii 
she  is  never  t(»  be  hehl  toanswe.  !";»r  damages  (»f  akind  which  sheat^s,i 
are  so  daniicrous  and  uncertain  that  they  ininht  to  be  resisted. 

fs  she  ]n'cpiired  to  hold  back  from  an  invitation  to  offer  or  concur 
what  must  biinj^'  such  results  .' 

AVhat  will  be  the  j;ain  to  the  Uiuted  States.'  The  settlement  of 
safe  rule  for  the  future,  and  the  saving  of  the  advantaf;es  to  their 
terests,  which  are  to  be  found  In  the  friendly  adJustnuMit  which  \ 
thought  to  have  b(!eu  anule  of  all  the  questions  likely  to  disturb 
relations  of  the  two  countries,  at  the  cost  of  j-ivinp,'  up  that  portioiu 
their  demands  for  past  injuries  which  they  have  been  pressing,  not  wit 
a  view  to  obtainin{>-  pecuniary  compensation,  but  only  in  the  assertioi 
of  their  right  to  have  such  an  award  Iro'n  the  Tribunal  at  Geneva; 
will  nnike  the  Treaty  of  Washington  what  it  was  really  intiMided  tol 
a  means  for  wiping  away  forever  from  between  these  kindred  natioi| 
all  iliflerences  and  comi)laiids  as  well  as  all  claims. 


W-' 


'i 


Xo.  .18. 
General  Schencl-  to  Mr. 


Fish. 


No.  2oO.|  '  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

"■  Londou,  May  25,  1H72.     (Received  June  5.) 

SiK  :  I  forward  herewith  copies  of  r  correspondence  which  has  taki 
]>lace  between  Lord  (Jrauville  and  Diyself  in  regard  to  the  propostf 
identic  notes  to  be  communicated  to  the  Arbitrators  at  Cleneva,  in  ('ii*| 
of  the  new  Treaty  article  being  ado[>ted,  together  with  a  copy  of  II] 
Lordship's  original  draught  of  suid  identic  notes  sent  to  me  in  his  lettciii 
the  !.'Oth  instant. 

I  have  the  hoiior  to  be.  .)ir,  y(>ur  obedient  servant, 

(In  the  absence  of  General  Schenck,) 

r,KN,j a:\mn  :moiiax, 


[Iiiclosiiro  1  in  Xo.  H^.] 
7w(/V  (Inawillc  to  General  Seheneh. 

roREifiN  OrncE,  Mail  20, 187:'.  I 
SiK  :  V\'e  agree  that  it  niigiit  sr.ve  tinu>,  in  case  of  the  Treaty  boinl 
adopted,  if  I  were  to  prepare  a  form  of  notes  I'rom  Her  Majesty's  im 
ernment  and  the  (iovernnient  of  the  United  States,  cominunicatin.:.;' t!i 
Treaty  to  the  Tribunal  oi"  Arbitration  at  (.icneva.  | 

I  therefore  send  you  the  draught  wliieli  I  have  pi'e|»  irod. 
1  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideiuti'in,  sir,  your  iinH 
obedient,  humble  servant, 

GiiAN  villi:, 

(h'A'i:u.vr,  Si'iik:>('!\",  dr.,  d-c,  dr. 


AlilUTRATlON. 


CORKHSI'ONDHNCE    RKSPKCTIN'O    GKNKVA    AftHI TRATIOX. 


f)9 


riviit.v  than  abiilc 


[Iii(!losiirt!  'i  ill  \().  :!>^.  I 

,,   /  J>mii;/lif  of  Identic  Note  to  the  Avhllrdtorn.        .  ■    .^  <<  ^i 

iTIic  mi(1('isijii)i'(l,  Affcnf  of  ITer  Briltiimie  Mnjesf!/,  {Af/eiit  of  the  United 
\hIch)  is  iiistriicttMl  by  //('/•  Majrslifs  (Utecnuuent  {the  (iorernnient  of  the 

\tiitvit  States)  1()  tninsiiiit  to the  accoiiiiJim.viiijjf  Dcclaviitory  (Jon- 

jiilioii,  ('(>iu'!ti(l«'<l  on bet\vo(>ii  llor  l>iitaimi(!  .Alajosty  and  the 

liih'd  States  ofAmorica,  I)y  wiiicli  it  is  providcMl  tiiat,  in  consideration 

tlie  a^ieeinent  tlicrein  set  foi'tli,  the,  President  of  tlie  Fnited  Stat(^s 

I!  make  iio  (.'hiiiii  on  tlie  ])art  <»f  the  Unitetl  .States  in  resix'ct  of  tin? 
direct  losses  stated  in  tlie  ease  presente<l  on  tlie  part  of  the  (Jovern- 

'iit  of  the  United  States  to  the.  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  on  tlio  lath  of 
I'ceiiihiM',  vi/:  "  Tlie  loss  in  the  transfer  of  the  Aiiioricaii  comniei'cial 
jiiriiic  ti)  the  liritish  ila.s;',  tlu^  enhanced  payments  of  insurance,  and 
[e  addition  of  a  larj^e  sum  of  the  cost  of  tlie  war  and  the  suiypression 

the  rebellion.'' 
Ilii  accordance  with  the  jmnisions  of  this  CouveJition,  the  undersigned 
[s  the  honor,  on  the  part  of  the  Crovernment  which  lie  reim^sents,  to 
kliiest  that  no  claims  for  indirect  losses  as  aforesaid  may  be  entertained 

the  Tribunal. 


n 


[  Inelosuro  3  in  No.  3M.J 

General  SeheneJc  to  Lord  Granville. 

TouQUAY,  May  22,  1872. 

j.Mv  Lowi) :  Your  note  of  the  20th,  covering  a  dranght  of  a  form  of  note 
j^Si'ested  for  communicating  the  new  Treaty  article,  if  adopted,  to  the 
ihitrators,  was  delivered  to  .Mr.  Morau  hist  evening, and  reached  me 

ere  this  morning. 

Il  shall  iiasten  to  submit  it  by  telegraidi  to  Mr.  Fish,  so  that,  if  the 

kcasion  comes,  no  time  may  be  lost  in  having  it  ready  as  agreed  on. 

11  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  Your  Lordship's 

lost  obedient  servant, 

JIOr.EUT  C.  SCllRNCK. 


GFvA^' villi:. 


Xo.  30. 
Mr.  Fish  to  General  iSchenelc. 

[T.'l.'griiiii.] 

])Ki'Ai{'rAij:M'  OF  State, 
WashiniJton,  May  2(»,  1872.     (Sent  at  2.;.'.0  a.  m.) 
iTiie  IMeNidciit  having  requested  an  exj)ression  by  the  Senate  of  their 
|s|i()sition  in  regard  to  advising  and  consenting  to  the  formal  adoption 

tlie  article  pro])osed  by  the  Uritish  (ioverniHe'.it,  as  communicated  in 
\uv  telein'iim  of  May  lOth,  that  body  has  amended  the  ])i'()i)0sed 
(tide  and  agrees  to  advise  and  consent  to  its  adoption  in  the  following 

I'lMs : 

Jnowu  lo  and  including  tlie  words  (Ireat  I'liiain,  the  same  as  in  tin.' 
[ticle  proposed;  then  tlie  following: 
|"Aiid  whereas  the  Government  of  the  United  States  lias  contended 

at  the  said  claims  were  included  in  the  Treaty;  and 
|'•^VlM'reas  both  (lovernments  a(h)pt  for  the  futures  the  prin(;iple  that 
piiiis  for  remote  or  indirect  losses  should  not  be  admitted  as  the  result 

failure  to  ol)serve  neutral  obligations,  so  far  as  to  declare  that  it  will 


Pi  '^^ 

kmm 
mgm 


:?, 


.?:■• 


Ni^H:' 


■J  ■■■i.'^.y 


!'^;V-^' 


' ,   '  -         "it 


100      COKRIOSI'ONDKNCE    RESPECTINO    GENEVA    AKIUTRATION. 

lion'iil'tcr  ji'iiido  tim  (!()n(lnct  of  both  (Joveniiiii'iit*  in  tlicir  rt'latioiis  witli 
PiU'li  otiicr;  iKiw,  tln'icfoic, 

"  In  con.siilciation  tlicroof,  tlu'  President  of  the  United  States,  l>y  and 
with  the  ailviee  and  consent  ol'  the  Senate  thereof,  consents  that  iu^  will 
inal<e  no  claim  on  tiie  part  of  the  United  States,  in  respect  of  indirect 
h»-'       as  aforesaid,  before  the  Tribnnal  of  Arbitration  at  (leneva." 

ii  will,  withont  delay,  inform  Lord  Granville  that,  in  pursnanco  et 
i.,.i  action  of  the  Senate,  the  I'resident  will  ne^otiatif  a  new  article  in 
the  terms  and  to  the  etVect  of  the  forejjoinj;'.  Y(m  will  also  say  to  him 
that  the  two  Honscs  of  Conjiress  hav(^  passed  a  concnrrent  res(>lution  to 
adjourn  niiia  die  on  tht!  L'Otli  instant,  and  that  a  treaty  embodying 
the  article  must  bo  ])resented  to  the  Senate  and  receive  its  ai)proval. 
It  is  important,  therefore,  tliat  antlunity  be  speedily  j-iven  to  Iler  Maj- 
esty's ]\iinister  here  to  si<;ii  the  convention,  if  the  IJritish  Government 
concludes  to  enter  into  the  agreement. 

A  copy  of  the  *article  has  been  furnished  to  Sir  Edward  Thornton. 

•Till)  (litliiriMiccs  ln(t\V(M!ii  till)  Ai'ticilo  snj^i^ostDil  l)y  Gri'ivt  Hritiiiii,  siil)iiiitte(l  to  tlii' 
Senate  iliiy  i:$,  iuid  tlio  Article!  joloptcd  by  tlio  .Sciiiitc  May  'Sy,  arc  shown  in  iiaiallcl 
colunniH  Itclow.  TIks  left-hand  colnnin  ^ivcs  the  text  ])i(>iM)st!<l  Ijy  Great  Jhilain  ;  the 
rif^ht-liand  cohinui  shinvs  the  ulterationn  made  by  the  Senate: 

WliereaH  tlie  Gnvevnnient  of  Iter  JJritan- 
iiie  Majesty  ban  eont<'n(h'd  in  tlie  recent  eor- 
res]i()n(lcnee  with  the  (iovernnient  of  the 
United  States  as  follows,  namely  :  That 
sneh  indirect  claims  as  those  for  tin-  na- 
tional lossi's  stated  in  the  Cast;  ])resented, 
on  the  jiart  of  the  Government  of  the 
UnitedStates,  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration 
at  Gcnevii,  to  have  been  snstained  l)y  the 
loss  in  the  tiansfcr  of  the  American  com- 
niercinl  marine  to  th»!  IJritish  Hag;  the  en- 
hanced jiaymcnts  of  insurance;  the  i)ro- 
lonijation  of  the  war,  and  the  addition  of  a 
large  snin  to  the  cost  <if  the  war  and  the 
snji]iressii)n  of  the  rebellion — Firstly,  were 
not  inclnded  in  the  Treaty  of  Washington, 
and  fnrther,  ami  secondly,  should  not  be 
adnutted  in  i)rincii)lB  as  growing  ont  of  the 
acts  connnitttMl  by  particular  vessels,  al- 
leged to  hav(!  I)e(^n  enabled  to  commit  de- 
predations upon  the  shii)ping  of  a  bellige- 
rent, by  reason  of  such  want  of  due  dili- 
gence in  the  iierformance  of  the  neutral 
obligations  iis  that  which  is  imputed  by  the 
United  States  to  Great  Britain;  and 

Whereas  the  Government  of  Her  Hritan-"\ 
nic  Majesty  has  also  declared  that  the  prin- 
ciple involved  in  the  second  of  tin;  conten- 
tions,  hereinbefore  set   forth,   will  guide 
their  conduct  iu  future;  and 

Whereas  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  whilst  adhering  to  his  cont(!ntion 
that  the  said  claims  were  Included  in  the 
Treaty,  adopts  for  the  future  the  principle 
contained  in  the  second  of  the  saiil  conten- 
tions, so  far  as  to  declare  that  it  will  here- 
after guide  the  conduct  of  the  Governnu'ut 
of  the  United  States,  and  the  two  countries 
are  therefore  agn^ed  in  this  respect. 

In  consideration  thereof  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  by  and  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Semite  thereof,  consents 
that  he  will  make  no  claim  on  tlie  part  of 
the  United  States,  in  respect  of  indir;"-; 
losses  as  aforesaid,  before  the  Tribunal  of 
Arbitration  at  Geneva. 


Wherciis  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  has  contended  that  the  said  claims 
were  included  in  theTreatj-;  and 

Whereas  l)oth  Governments  adopt  for 
the  future  the  principle  that  claims  for 
remote  or  indirect  losses  should  not  be  ad- 
mitted as  the  result  of  failure  to  observe 
neutral  obligations,  so  far  as  to  declare 
that  it  will  hereafter  guide  the  conduct  of 
both  Governments  in  their  relations  with 
each  other:  Now,  therefore, 


rRATION. 


CORKESPONDKNCE    KKSl'KCTIXO    GENEVA    ARBITRATIOX.       101 


ir  rt'liitioiis  witli 

(1  States,  l>y  J»"<1 
L'lits  that  lu^  will 
(|)('ct  of  iiHliioi^t 
it  (Jeiiova." 
ill  imisuanco  ol 
a  new  artiele  in 
also  say  to  liiin 
ent  res(»lutiou  to 
L'aty  cmbodyiiij,' 
ive  its  approval, 
veil  to  Iler  Maj- 
iish  Govcruinent 

aid  Tlioriiton. 

1,  siibinittiMl  to  (lie 
'.  shown  ill  ))ai'ii1li'l 
(ii'ciit  Ih'ilaiii ;  the 


,:,    .       M    .,,       M.    -r  ■',■■  XO.    40.  ■ 

r      •  Mr.  Fish  to  (h'lieml  Sclieuch:         >  <- 

No.  L'lo.J  I  Department  OF  State, 

'.  ir«.vA//u//o»,  J/^(j/L'S,  1872. 

Sir  :  I  have  to  acl<iio\vle(l<;e  the  receipt  of  your  (lis[)ateh  of  the  1  Ith 
instant.  No.  --."),  rehitiiij,'  to  the  proposed  new  artieh;  to  the  Treaty  of 
,May  -S,  1S71,  and  the  nienioranduin  wliicih  aeeoinpanied  it.  Tliat  inein- 
oiiimhiin  is  a  very  able  and  eoini>reliensive  review  of  the  ease,  ami  pre- 
sents tlie  ])osition  of  the  United  States,  in  the  main,  very  fully. 

The  object  of  the  United  States  in  inaistiiifj  on  retainin<^  the  indirect 
cliiiins  before  the  tribunal  was: 

r.  The  ri^ht  under  the  treaty  to  present  them. 

II.  To  have  them  disjuwed  of  and  removed  from  further  controversy. 

III.  To  obtain  ad(M'ision  eitlier  tor  or  against  the  liability  of  a  neutral 
tor  (claims  of  that  description. 

IV.  If  the  liability  of  a  neutral  for  such  claims  is  admitted  in  the 
future,  then  to  insist  on  ])ayment  by  Great  Jiritain  for  those  of  the 
past. 

V.  Ilavinj;-  a  case  a<;ainst  (Jreat  I'ritain,  to  have  the  same  principle 
iipplied  to  it  that  may  in  tiie  future  be  invoked  a;j;ainst  the  United 
States. 

1  am,  sir,  vour  obedient  servant, 

nA:\IILT()X  FISII. 
(leneral  Kohert  ( '.  Sciienok,  dv,  dr.,  i(t. 


Xo.  41. 


(SeiwruJ  Scltrnclc  to  Mr.  Fi.sh. 


cut  of  tlu!  Unitt'd 
it  tlio  said  cliiinis 
eaty;  and 
nnients  adopt  for 
lo  that  claims  for 
s  should  not  be  ad- 
failure  to  observi' 
far  as  to  declare 
ide  the  conduct  of 
eir  relations  with 
ore, 


['l'cl(';^i-ani.] 

London,  Mai/  28,  1872.    (Received  at  1.1")  a.  m.) 
1  cimununicated  your  telegram  of  yesterday  to  Lord  (iianville.     lie 
submitted  it  to  the  cabinet,  who  took  it  under  long  considerafion.     lie 
lias  Just  given  me  their  answer.     It  is  as  follows : 

"Her  Majesty's  (lovernment  are  of  opinion  that  the  definition  by  the 
Senate  of  the  princi[>le  which  both  Governments  are  jireparcd  to  adojit 
tor  the  future  is  so  vague  that  it  is  imixissible  to  state  to  what  it  is,  or 
is  not,  ai)]tlicable,  and  they  believe  that  it  would  only  lead  to  future  mis- 
understandings. They  ])refer  the  article  as  they  had  draughted  it,  but 
have  no  objection  to  accept  the  article  in  the  form  lu'ojiosed  by  the  Sen- 
ate, with  the  substitution  of  the  words  'of  a  like  nature,'  for  the  words 
'for  remote  or  indirect  losses,'  and  the  substitution  of  the  words  'such 
want  of  due  diligence  on  the  jiart  of  a  neutral,'  for  the  words  '  the  failure 
to  observe  neutral  obligations.'" 

In  rejily  to  my  iiif|uiry  of  Lord  Granville,  whether  any  ])ossible  inter- 
])retation  of  the  form  proposed  by  the  Senate  would  be  held  by  them 
to  prevent  taking  before  the  Arbitratcns,  to  be  considered  by  them  in 
11.  iking  their  award,  that  part  of  the  claims  which  relates  to  the  cost  of 
pursuit  and  capture  of  cruisers,  he  states  that  he  must  on  behalf  of  Her 
Majesty's  Government  decline  to  answer  my  question  as  to  the  etlect  of 


1  »1     J»  'l 


i 


102      CORRICSPONDKNCK    KKSPKCTINO    CKNKVA    ARlilTKATION. 

tli<^  iiiticlo  as  iiUtMcd  liy  tlic  Souatt',  or  to  sta  ":  what  possible  construe 
tion  it  may  Ix'ar.     Lord  (iiaiivilh^  says  \n^  lias  iiit'oniicd  Sir  lithviinl 
Thornton  that  \u'  may  tell  you  llcr  Ma,j(\sty's  (lovernmont  will  not  insist  I 
on  the  w«)r(ls  you  (hisiro  to  omit  from  tlui  prcMUibh'  if  you  will  yivej 
assurance  in  writin;;' that  the  Tnited  States  will  a/^ree  to  tlut  form  of  note 
he  proposed  (lommunicatin;;' llie  ('onvention  on  tlie  part  of  tiie  two  (Jov  I 
ernments  to  the  Trihunal  of  Arhitration.     Jiord  (Iranville  tells  me  <!(>ii| 
tidentially  that  Thornton  informed  him  you  had  stated  that  the  Coiii- 
juittee  on  Foreign  AtVaiis  was  reatly  to  recommend  the  lollowiu};'  form: 
"And  whereas  the  (lov<'rnnu'nt  of  the  L'niteil  Htat<'s  contend  that  tlii' 
said  claims  were  iiu^luded  in  the  Treaty,  now  tlu^  two(iovernments  a{>rt'i' 
that  the  principle  involved  in  the  second  of  the  contentions  hereinbefore] 
set  forth  by  Her  IMajesty's  (lovernment  will  s'U'«l^'   th«'ir  conduct  iit| 
future  in  their  relations  with  each  other;''  which  proposal  he  says  t\m 
were  prei)ared  to  adopt. 


' .  I ..'  ■-,. 


■  *•.>■ 


-  ¥ 


.,.    ^.. 


"■!.-. 'J";- 

I    ■,  '■■.l\''  jr..  ,1    ■'» 


No.  42. 

Mr.  Fisli  tn  (Jciuinl  tScIunck. 
['IVli'jjraiii.] 

Washington,  Mai/  L\S,  ISTi'. 
This  (iovernnu^nt  declines  to  aj^ree  to  tlu^  proposed  altering;- of  tlie 
supplementary  article.     The   establishment   of  the  jirinciple  embodied 
therein  has  been  its  object  in  adherinji'  to  the  presentati«)n  of  the  indirect  I 
claims,  and  its  recoynilion  is  the  inducement  ibr  not  ]»ressinjj  llu'iii| 
before  the  tribunal. 


No.  -i'\. 


(Unvral  Svhvnvl;  to  Mr.  Fish, 
[Trl.-iam.J 

V  London,  May  28,  1872.     (Received  .May  29,  7.30  a.  m.) 

Lord  Granville  has  to  iiijuht,  after  another  Cabinet,  sent  me  the  fol- 
lowing'  further  communication : 


'■:  ."it.r"  "•  .1: 


[*■  '>'.■.■-■.■ 
'.}•'  ■  -..-1,  ■ 


m^ 


■'•;    r^ 


[ItJarl  Granville  to  General  Schenck.] 

"  [  think  it  desirable  at  once  to  address  to  you  the  following:  observa- 
tions in  addition  to  what  is  stated  in  my  letter  of  yesterday.  Her 
Majesty's  Government  proposed  an  articile  on  the  sn}>:f>estion  of  the 
American  Government ;  that  article  has  been  amended  by  the  Senate. 
Her  Majesty's  Government  are  not  able  to  tind  for  it,  as  amended,  any 
means  or  standard  of  interpretation;  the  words  appear  to  include  the  willful 
misconduct  of  a  neutral,  as  well  as  a  failui'e  from  want  of  due  diligence. 
They  (tannot  sui)pose  this  to  be  the  meaninji-  of  the  American  Govern- 
ment. Her  Majesty's  Government  hold  all  the  claims  made  by  tlie 
United  States  for  losses  which  were  the  direct  results  of  the  acts  ot 
vessels  mentioned  in  the  Treaty,  to  be  claims  for  indirect  losses  as  the 
result  of  the  failure  to  observe  neutral  obligations.  Her  ]Majesty's  (Gov- 
ernment hold  manv  of  the  claims  for  the  losses  above  nu'iitioned  to  be 


RIUTUATION. 

it  poHsildc  (•oiistnic 

iiiiiMit  will  not  iiisLsil 
tic  if  you  will  ojvc 
'to  tlu'lonn  ol'  nuw 
•art  of  tlio  two  (Jov 
iivillc  t«'lls  uw  con- 
tilted  tiiiit  the  (.'omi 
tilt'  followiiif;-  fonii; 
«'.s  coiitt'iHl  that  till' I 

(ioVt'llJUUMlt.S  ayit'c 
'Utioiis  lK'i'(Uiibi'tbi'e| 
0   tht.'ir  (jonduct  iii| 
oposal  he  says  tlun 


CORRKSPONDKXCK    IlKSI'ECTINTi    OKNEVA    ARniTRATIOX.       103 

IrliiiiiiH  for  losses  which  are  leinote  as  well  as  indirect,  while  n'sidfiiif;; 

]fi(»iii  ii  failure  to  ohserve  neutral  <»l)lijrations.     Her  Majesty's  (lovern- 

liiu'iit  are  unable  to  sijunify  an  assent  to  a  lorin  of  article,  of  which  they 

Iciinnot  lor  themselves  discover  the  sc(»|)e,  and  with  resjiect  to  which. 

Lwiiili',  probably,  to  tln^  diniculty  of  telejiiaphic  cotninunication,  they 

liiive  n(»t  be«'n  ajtprised  of  the  nu-aniny  whiih  the  Ain(Mican  (lovernnient 

iitliiclii's  t«»  it,  or  of  the  reasons  which  have  led  to  its  beinj^'  jiroposcil. 

If  tlic  (iovei'Minent  of  the  United  States  think  it  di'sirable  to  n'lvv  the 

infonnation  which    Her  Majesty's  (iovei'unu'Ut  wish  to  receive  on  these 

jpiiiiits,  and  also  think  that   for  that  purpose  some  adjournment  of  the 

time  of  meeting'  of  the  Arl>itrators  at  (ieneva  shouhl  take  place,  l!er 

.Majesty's  iJovernment  would  be  ready  to  ajjree  to  any  suitable  proposal 

lor  tiiat  purpose,  which  tlu>y  i)resume  could  ordy  be  done  by  a  short 

ti''alv  l>etween  the  two  (Jovernments." 


H 


ON,  Mat/  L'H,  iSTl'. 
•sed  altering'  of  tlic 
jninciple  embodied  I 
ition  of  the  indirect 
not  pressinjj  tlieiii 


ly  L'O,  7.;}0  a.  m.) 
t,  sent  me  the  fol- 


'ollowin}4'  observa- 
yesterday.    Her 

suj>j)estion  of  tlio 

ed  by  the  Senate, 
as  amended,  any 
ncludethewillfiil 
of  due  dilij^ence. 

American  Govern- 
ns  ma<le  by  the 

ts  of  the  acts  of 
•ect  losses  as  the 

'r  ^lajesty's  (Jov- 
mentioned  to  be 


No.  44. 

Mr.  Fisli  to  (iciicral  8chencl<. 
[Extrait.] 

No.  I'll. I  •  Dkpautmknt  01'  Statk, 

WasliiniitoHj  May  lis,  ISTl'. 

Silt;  Late  last  eveidu};'  Sir  Edward  Thornton  <!alled  at  my  house, 
liavinj:',  as  he  stated,  a  telefiiani  from  Lord  (Iranvilh',  the  ^eneial  i>nr- 
|)(»rt  of  which  he  mentioned,  to  the  elVect  that  the  British  (iovt'iiunent 
haviMj>'  received  the  amembuent  jn-oposed  by  this  flovernment  to  their 
|])n)p(Ksed  su])i)lemental  article,  would  prefer  their  own  drauj^ht,  but  that 
tlicy  would  accept  the  i)ropose(l  alteration,  substitutin;j,'.  however,  for  the 
I  words  "  for  remote  or  indirect  losses,"  the  words  "  of  a  like  nature,''  and 
for  tlu^  words  "failure  to  observe  neutral  obli.nations,'"  the  words  "such 
want  of  due  dili<;ence  on  tlu!  part  of  a  neuti'al."' 

1  told  hiui  franl'ly,  and  earnestly,  that  no  chanj^'e  or  alteration  of  any 
kind  is  adnnssible  or  can  be  entertained.  1  atlded  that  the  United 
.States,  now  have  a  (!ase  aj>ainst  (Ireat  Jiritain,  he  interrupting  me  by 
sayinji,  "the  United  States  think  they  now  Inive  a  ca.se.''  1  jn'oeeeded, 
sayiny;  that  it  nuide  no  difference,  that  having-  now  a  ca.se,  they  desire 
to  ])ress  it  for  a  decision,  or  to  have  the  priiu-iple  of  exemption  of 
national  liability  for  iinlire(!t  losses  established  for  the  future;  that  that 
principle  is  theerpuvalent  or  consideration  of  abstaining  from  a  dennuid 
before  the  Tril)unal  for  danniges  on  account  of  the  indirect  los.ses;  that 
as  now  altered,  the  article  i)revents  the  presentation  of  indirect  claims 
aRain.><t  the  UnitedStates,onaccountof  th(!  Fenian  raids,  while  the  Ibitish 
draught  would  exclude  oidy  claims  ari.sing  from  the  acts  of  ve.s.sels,  &c., 
and  under  circnnistances  which  nniy  jtossibly  never  again  occur.     *     * 

He  then  asked  me  about  the  ])reamble  and  the  proposed  note  to  the 
Arbitrator.s.  Jn  reply,  I  told  him  that  it  was  u.seless  to  discuss  either 
while  his  (lovernnHMit  is  contemplating  any  change  in  the  article. 

ITe  said  it  might  be  well  to  have  an  understanding,  in  order  to  .save 
time  in  case  his  Government  accept  the  alterations  made  to  the  article. 

In  this  view,  I  showed  him  a  draught  of  a  preamble  which  had  been  pre- 
])ared  in  the  J)epartment,  reciting,  simply,  that  the  two  Governments, 
<leeniing  it  advisable  that  "  there  should  i)e  an  additional  article  to  the 
Treaty  signed  at  Washington  on  the  8th  day  of  JMay,  1871,  have  for  that 


ij 


I''  iA^ 


» ■'  /  •  ■• 


i'^^i:---: 


104      CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 

l)iirpose  iianiLMl  as  their  Plenii)otcntiiU'io.s, "  &tj.,  and  sayiii}?  tliat  I  see  noj 
occasion  lor  any  otlicr  recital;  and  that  as  to  tlie  j)roi)ose(l  note  we  will 
not  sifi'ii  it.     He  asked  if  there  was  any  objection  to  their  signing-  sndi 
note,  to  which  I  replied  that  we  could  not  control  them  in  that  respect; I 
they  had  the  i)o\ver  to  make  such  representations  to  the  Tribunal  as  tiioy 
thought  ])roper;  that  there  might  be  no  objection  on  our  i»art  to  the 
former  i>art  of  the  proi)osed  note,  but  that  the  latter  clause  was  iiot] 
necessary,  as  the  effect  of  the  article  accomplished  what  was'then  stated 
as  a  request;  that  we  would  lay  the  Treaty,  if  agreed  to,  before  the  Tri 
bunal,  and  our  counsel  would  be  gnided  by  it,  and  would  abstain  froiiij 
making  any  claim  on  account  of  the  indirectt  losses ;  but  I  desired  not  to 
bo  conunitted  in  advance  of  the  agreenuMit  to  the  article. 

1  then  referred  to  the  (piestion  raised  by  your  t(^legram,  received  yos 
terday,  as  to  the  effect  of  the  article  upon  tlie  claim  for  expense  of  pin- j 
suit  of  the  cruisers,  and  added  that  I  did  not  think  there  conld  be  any 
doubt,  as  l)oth  (iovernments  had,  through  the  whole  correspondence, 
treated  this  as  a  direct  claim.  With  some  reserve  and  caution,  and  (lis  I 
claiming  any  authority  to  speak,  he  remarked  that  he  believed  tliiit 
claim  had  been  created  as  a  direct  claim ;  one  on  which  the  Tribunal  was 
to  pass,  and  decide  whether  or  not  it  be  one  for  which  compensation  is  | 
to  be  made. 

lam  this  morning  in  the  receipt  of  your  telegram  eomnuinicatiiij;  | 
the  ])roposed  changes  to  the  article   wliich  !Sir  Edward  Tiiornton  liad 
communicated  to  me,  as  above  mentioned. 

Liu'd  (Jranville's  evasion  of  a  reply  to  your  question  respecting  tlii' 
pursuit,  &c.,  of  the  cruisers,  is  signiticant  and  suggestive  of  caution. 

It  is  very  jjossible  that  the  whole  thing  will  fail;  if  so,  this  country 
will  stand  before  the  world  having  done  all  that  it  <;oidd  to  maintain 
the  Treaty,  and  the  civilizing  |)riiici|»le  which  it  established.  The  respon- 
sibility of  fadure  must  rest  with  (Jreat  Ibitain,  who  evidently  will  havi 
shown  a  reserved  intent,  and  an  object  of  future  advantage  not  avowed. 
*  *  *  Much  as  this  (Tovernment  \\\\\  r(\gret  the  failure,  it  can  stand 
it  as  well  as  can  (Ireat  IJritain. 

Tliere  are  some  tilings  in  the  telegram  reeeiv<'d  this  morning  whicli 
may  recpiire  comment;  but  1  iiu-line  to  iiope  that  what  may  seem  arro- 
gant in  Lord  (Iranville's  remark,  that  he  will  not  insist  on  certain 
language  in  the  proposed  iireamble,  arises  from  tlie  constraint  .of  tlic 
telegrajihie  form  of  c(unmnnication;  and  so,  too,  the  suggestion  of  a  con- 
dition that  assurance  be  given,  in  writing,  ol Certain  things. 

As  i)res('nted  in  your  telegi'am,  these  observations  appear  su<'h  as  1 
■  am  contident  you  would  not  have  listened  to,  without  repelling  them. 
1  conlideiitly  hope  that  their  unpleasant  api»earance  is  to  l)e  attriltutci' 
to  the  style  of  telegrapliicr  eorivspoiidcnce. 

Sir  Edward  Thornton  was  told  by  me,  sonu^  d.iys  since,  what  1  nndci 
stood  Avould  ]>rol)al»ly  be  the  expectiMl  change  recommended  by  tlic 
Senate  committee,  ile  has  made  .some  mistakes  in  transmitting  it.  I 
gave  him  no  coi)y ;  h<'  must  lia\e  reported  it  from  memoiy.  Hut  wli;il 
ever  it  was,  it  was  a  thing  under  consideration,  and  thi'  committi'c'"> 
ri'port  was  changed  by  the  Senate.  I  see,  therefore,  no  impoitaiu'e  tn 
be  attached  to  a  variance  in  the  linal  action  of  the  Senate  from  what 
was  at  one  time  expeetfd  ;  although  what  was  expected  is  (iiifeicnt 
from  what  Lorfl  (Iranville  has  understood  to  have  been  expected. 


am,  su'.  vour  obedu'nt  servant. 


[iA.MlLTON  ElSll. 


(ieueral  Ifoni'.irr  C.  Sciiiinck,  dv.,  dv.,  i(c. 


RBITRATION, 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING   GENEVA    ARBITRATION.       105 


.saying  tliut  I  soe  iio| 
■oi)oseiI  note  we  will 
0  tiioir  signing  siicli 
leni  ill  that  respect;! 
:lie  Tribunal  as  titoy 
on  our  i)art  to  the 
ItiiT  clause  was  not 
hat  was'tlien  stated  | 
(1  to,  l)efV)re  the  Tri- 
would  abstain  from 
but  I  desired  not  to  I 
I'tiele.  I 

jiiani,  received  yes  I 
tor  expense  of  pur- 
there  conld  be  any 
)le  correspondence, 
nl  caution,  and  (lis 
t  he  believed  tlnit 
•h  the  Tribunal  wns 
eh  conipensaiion  is 

am  coininunicatiiij;! 
vard  Tiiornton  liad 

tion  respectinjn'  the 

'Stive  of  caution. 

if  so,  this  country 

could  to  maintaiii 

|ished.    The  respon- 

vidently  will  havi 

ita.i>e  not  avowed, 

lure,  it  can  stand 

is  ni(U'iiin<4'  wliicli 
it  may  seem  arro- 
insist  on  certiiiii 
constraint  .ot  tiic 
;,ii'esli()n  of  a  con- 
iiM<;s. 

appear  such  as  1 
It  repellin.!-'  tiieni, 
s  to  be  attributed 

<-e,  what  1  unilci' 
mineiKk'd  by  the 
iansmiltin,i>-  it.  1 
nory.  Ibit  \vh;it- 
the  couimittec's 
no  importance  to 
M'uale  from  wliot 
'cted  is  dilfercnt 
n  ex)»ected. 

1/iOX  FISil. 


No.  45. 

Mr.  Finh  to  Generol  Scliencl: 

[Tclogram — Extract.] 

WASiirxdTON,  May  2J»,  1872. 

Your  telegram  of  last  night  received  tliis  morning.  We  cannot  uuder- 
.stand  the  objections  which  Lord  (Granville  raises.  Jle  raises  new  issues, 
but  suggests  nothing  in  the  direction  of  au  agreement.  Criti(;ism  and 
(ilijcction  without  suggestions  lea<l  to  no  results,  and  do  not  give 
assuiaiHJC  of  a  desire  to  harnuuiize  diifering  ■•iews. 

You  have  informally  suggested  various  modes  of  agreemenr,  but 
(beat  lUitain  has  met  all  with  the  demand  to  withdraw  claims  wliicdi 
we  feel  we  were  justilied  under  tlie  Treaty  in  ])reseuting,  while  the  obli- 
;;ations  whicli  Great  Britain  has  in  various  f<unis  i)rotfered  on  her  part 
liaveall  been  substantially  the  same,  and  have  been  vague,  uncertain, 
ideal,  aiul  not  likely  ever  to  become  available. 

Tiie  article  proposed  by  the  Senate  is  fair,  caiulid,  and  reciprocal. 
Tiiis  Government  has  endeavored  to  express  its  views,  objects,  and 
iiieaiiing  with  respect  to  the  princijde  embodied  therein  in  the  corre- 
spondence which  has  taken  place,  and  in  the  commuiucations  which  you 
liave  had  with  Iler  ^Majesty's  ^linister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

As  the  juoposed  article,  if  it  is  to  become  a  treaty,  must  be  signed 
iind  be  submitted  to  the  Senate  ibr  ajtproval,  but  two  days  remain 
witliin  whicli  that  approval  can  !»<>  had,  and  the  Treaty  ibrwarded  to 
London  to  eiuible  tlu'  ratifications  to  be  exchanged  in  tinu'  to  be  pre- 
.scnted  to  the  Arbitrators  at  their  nu-eting  in  .luue. 

Further  (explanations  of  the  views  of  the  Government  seem,  therefore, 
iniuo.ssible  to  be  interchanged  between  here  and  London  ;  but  you  nmy 
be  able  to  explain  these  views  as  they  have  been  communicaicd  to  you 
iioni  this  J)e])artnu'nt. 

Tlie  President  is  extremely  anxious  to  i»reserve  a  treaty  embodying 
iuid  giving  i)ractical  application  to  the  doctrine  of  arbitration  as  a  mode 
of  .settUng  international  ditVerences,  and  lor  that  end  has  been  willing 
to  make  large  concession.s. 

You  will  call  the  attention  of  Her  Majesty's  Minister  to  the  fact  that 
ludess  the  Treaty  be  sigiu'd  and  approved  by  the  Semite  .so  that  the 
President's  ratilication  can  leave  here  the  day  alter  to-morrow  and  go 
by  Saturday's  steamei,  it  cannot  reach  Loiulon  in  liiiui  to  be  there  ex- 
clianged,  and  be  jtresented  to  the  Arbitrators  at  their  meeting  on  l.lth 
.buie. 

1'he  suggestion  ol'  another  treaty  to  adj(uirn  the  meeting  at  Gene\a 
scciiis  impracticable.  The  Senate  is  in  the  last  days  of  its  ses.siou,  with 
much  important  legislation  i)euding,  and  every  hour  of  its  tim(>  pre- 
occupied, in  the  absence  of  any  iiulication  of  a  dis|)ositiou  on  the  part 
uf  the  Ibitisb  (b)V(U'Uinent  to  suggest  anything  to  wliiidi  this(M)vern- 
mcnt  could  assent,  it  would  be  impossible  to  secure  enough  of  the  time 
of  the  Senate  to  agree  to  a  treaty  which  pioiuises  only  further  delay 
and  ]U(tci'astination. 

I  regret  not  to  .see  au  indication  of  a  desire  «u'  disposition  on  the  part 
of  the  ibitisb  (b)vcrnment  to  come  to  an  agreement  wlii(di  will  be 
lionoiable  to  this  (btxcriMucnt. 

if  the  Ibitisb  (b)vernment  has  any  propo.sals  to  make  they  will  be 
I'aiily  considered,  with  the  most  sinceie  desire  of  a  frank,  friendly,  and 


kf.} 


106       CORRESPONDENCK    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 

lionomble  aj^reoiniMit.     We  neither  ask  nor  will  consent  to  an.vtliiii;| 

else. 

*  #  •  »  «  0       '        * 

Tlie  tDiie  of  Lord  (Ininville's  notes  seems  to  assume  that  the  SeiiatJ 
and  this  (roverninoiit  are  to  accept  what  (Jreat  IJritain  irmy  have  .siij.| 
iU'ested.    Our  view  is  very  different. 


-f  A-'* 


f:,^ 


General  Schencl-  to  Mr.  Fish.  ,    , 

[Tck'^nain.]  ; 

London,  ^lay  30,  1872.     (lleeeived  U  |>.  m.j 
Your  teley;ram  of  yesterday  n'ceived   and   communicated   to   Lonl 
(Jranville.     lie  said  he  woidd  confine  himself  to  one  I'emark,  namely, 
that  your  statement  at  the  bef>ii"iinj?  from  the  words  "  lie  raises,] 
down  to  the  word  "  views,''  was  inexplicable  to  him.  What  had  been  tlici 
course  they  had  pursued?    They  had  at  the  request  of  the  (iovernmcntl 
of  the  United  States  draujihted  an  article  founded  on  an  idea  of  that  (lovf 
eminent.    The  Government  of  the  United  States  had  anuMided  tliiij 
article,  and  in  answer  they  had  not  merely  stated  an  objection  to  tlie 
amendment,  but  had  dranj;hted  a  reamencled  article  for  their  (ronsidoi  j 
ation.     lie  said  he  would  not  nuike  any  i'urther  ar}:,unu'nt  until  he  liai 
submitted  to  his  colleagues  the  communication  which  had  just  bwiij 
made  to  him.     1  stated  that  1  did  not  wish  to  go  into  any  argumoiit,] 
but  wonldjust  state  again  what  was  my  view  of  the  i)resent  situation  iunl 
difference  between  ns,  though  it  was  but  repeating  former  statements, 
said  to  him,  "I  assume  that  your  object,  like  ours,  is  to  affirm  tliel 
])rinciple  that  neutrals  are  not  to  be  held  liable  for  indirect  and  rein(it([ 
damages,  which  nniy  be  the  result  of  a  failure  to  observe  neutral  oblil 
gallons,  and  to  establish  that  i)rincii)le  as  a  rule  to  be  observed  betweeiij 
our  two  nations.     Your  proposed  form  of  article,  as  it  was  amended  livl 
the  Senate,  we  think  does  tliat.     You  thiidc  it  is  too  vngue.    AVe  thiiikj 
yonr  pro])()sal,  either  as  originally  made  or  as  modified  by  your  i)roposeilj 
amendment  of  the  language  of  the  Senate,  would  be  altogether  uucer  [ 
tain,  as  a  rule  in  ])raetice  confnies  itself  to  hyporhetical  cases  whi(;li  iniiyj 
never  occur,  and,  instead  of  recognizing  and  a])i)lying  the   geiuMiil 
l)rinciple,  limits  the  rule  to  some  three  classes  only  of  indirect  elaiins, 
being  those  which  are  put  forward  by  the  United  States  in  their  case  at] 
Gi^neva.*'    The  Cabinet  is  now  in  session. 


No.  47. 

(Iciicrdl  Schciwk  to  Mr.  Fish, 


[-';m-> 


No.  2V.\.\  Legation  of  the  United  Sta'J'es, 

London,  Mdi/'M),  187L'.     (IJeceived  .June  11.) 
Sill:   In(!losed  with  this  1  send  (u)))ies  of  all  written  eoirespondeniT 
which  has  i)assed  between  liord  (Iranville  and  me  since  my  No.  iM'.l. 
These  notes,  taken  in  connection  with  the  several  telegrams  which  have 


ARBITltATION. 


COHRKSPONDENCK    UESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.       107 


consent  to  aii.vtliiii;| 

^nnio  that  the  Senntfl 
U'itain  may  have  siiyl 


(Received  1)  p.  lu.) 
riiuimicated    to   Lonll 
one  ivniark,  namely,! 

words  "  He  laisos,] 
I.  What  had  been  tbi 
st  of  the  (iovernnu'iitl 
n  an  idea  of  that(iov 
.s  had  amended  thai 

an  objection  to  tin- 
le  lor  tlieir  (ionsidoi  I 
■{^ument  until  he  liadj 
ivhich  had  Just  bwiij 

into  any  arfjfumeiit.f 
present  situation  amli 
Drmcr  statements.  I| 
urs,  is  to  atiii-n;  tlii'l 

indirect  and  remotij 
observe  neutral  obli  I 

>e  observed  between  I 
it  was  amended  livl 
va<>ue.     We  tliii 
d  by  your  proposed  I 

)e  altoj^ether  uncor- 
d  cases  whitdi  niiiy! 
)lyin{>'   the   general 

y  of  indirect  chums,  j 

ites  in  their  case  at 


Lsscd  between  you  and  me,  of  wliich  copies  are  also  forwarded  to  you 
kitii  another  dispatch  to  day,  will  brin;>'  up  the  history  of  what  has  taken 
hlace  here  lor  the  last  live  days  in  relation  to  the  proi)osal  for  a  sup- 
hleiiientary  treaty.  Your  telejiram  of  the  U8tli,  declininj;',  on  the  part 
If  tiie,  IJniied  States,  to  af>re(^  to  the  proposed  alterinj;'  of  tlu'  supple- 
lieiitiiry  treaty,  was  recH'ived  in  the  nij;lit  and  communicated  to  Jjord 
flriinville  very  early  Acsterday  niorniiij;'.  I  would  yive  you,  witli  these 
loniinents,  some  narrative  and  comments,  and  it  was  Jiiy  intention  to 
in  so.  but  your  lon;^'  tclcfiiam  in  answer  to  the  observations  of  Lord 
hiiuivilie,  contained  in  his  note  which  1  tele<;rai»hed  to  you  in  full  at 
hiidni^lit  of  the  I'.Sth,  has  tiiis  moMU'ut  arrived  iuid  reipiires  to  be  de- 
[ililicred  and  to  liave  my  immediate  attention,  so  that  it  will  not  be 
hossible  to  j^ive  any  other  comnuinication  by  the  mail  which  is  made  up 
|or  (^»iieenstown  to-day. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  vour  obedient  servant, 

iior.Kirr  c.  ^("iiknck. 

Hon.  ITamilton  Fish, 

iSn-rctan/  of  <S7«/e,  W<isJnii(/t<»i,  I).  C. 


[Iu('lo.snr('  1  ill  No.  -17.] 

JJdfl  (imnrlUe  to  General  Sehem-V. 

FoiM'JcfN  OFFfCE,  Mdii  LIT,  1872. 

Su!:  I  in.structcd  Sir  10.  Thornton  to  communicate  to  Mr.  Fi.sh  the 
M'coiiipaMyi'iy  form  of  preamble  to  which  Her  IMajesty'sdoveriMnent  were 
l)i'('l)ared  to  aj^iee  in  ca.se  a  convention  should  be  (^oneluded  embodyin<>; 
jlic  (hauj;ht  article.  I  have  learned  from  Sir  K.  Thornton  that  ]Mr.  Fi.sli 
Ivoiihl  ])refer  the  omission  of  tlie  words  "in  oider  that  tlie  .samci  may 
[)('  conimnnicated  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration,  appointed  under  the 
|irst  article  of  tlu^  Treaty  signed  at  Washin.iiton  on  tlie  Sth  of  .Alay, 
ISTl,  for  the  gnidance  of  the  i)roi;eedinj;s  of  tliat  Tribunal,"  and  i  have 
tin's  day  informed  Hir  K.  Thornton  that  he  may  tell  ^Iv.  I-'ish  that  ller 
Miijesty's  Ciovernment  will  not  insist  on  the  words  which  he  desires  to 
3iiiit  in  tlu'  preamble,  if  he  will  j^ive  tSir  IC.  Thornton  an  assurance  in 
rritinj;'  that  the  Ciovernment  of  the  United  States  will  agree  to  the 
I'onii  of  note  which  T  proposed,  and  of  which  I  sent  you  a  copy  on  the 
L'Otli  instant,  comniunicatin};'  the  convention  on  the  i)art  of  the  two 
llovernments  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  (leneva.  I  iiave  to  add 
tliat  Sir  ]•].  Thornton  has  a  general  full  i>ower  enabling  him  to  sign  a 
I'diivention,  and  instructions  to  <lo  so  if  llu'  pi'oposals  contained  in  this, 
|\nd  in  my  (>ther  letters  ol'  tliis  day's  date,  are  agreed  to. 

1  liave  tiie  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  \onr  most 
lohfdient,  humble  .servant, 

(Hi  AN  villi:. 

('■('Mcial  !{.  C.  ScHlLNCK. 


(.IS 


.'.Jt 


(>^ 


r 


srn',1)  Si'A'i'Ks, 
-'ceived  dune  11.) 

en  correspondence 

sinc(^  my  No.  IMH, 

egrams  wliich  have 


'  [lllrlosillf  V*  ill  Xo.   17.  ] 

Propos(<l  preaitihlr  lo  siipplcmeiilal  Irriitj/. 

ller  .Majesty  tiie  (^ueen  of  the  Fnited  Kingdom  of  (5reat  Ibitain  and 
li't'laiid,  and  tlie  Fiiited  States  of  America,  having  resol\<'d  to  conclude 
lii  <'(iiiveiition  in  the  terms  of  the  arliclt^  liereinafter  set  forth,  in  order 


■\w^- 


108      CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 

that  tlie  same  may  be  commuiiieate<l  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  n 
])ointed  under  the  tir.st  artichi  of  the  Treaty  .si {;ne(l  at  Washiufjtoiii,, 
the  8th  of  May,  1871,  for  the  guidance  of  tlie  |)roecedings  of  tliat  Tij 
bunal,  have  named  as  their  Plenipotentiaries,  that  is  to  say 


[Iiiolosiiio  :{ in  No.  47.] 
Earl  Gninrille  to  Grnentl  Schenclx. 

FoKEiGN  Office,  London,  .May  27, 187i*. 

Sir:  1  have  lost  no  time  in  layinj^'  before  the  Cabinet  tin;  telejiriijilij 
disi)ateh  I'rom  Mr.  Fish,  which  you  communicated  to  ine  this  afteriiooil 
informin<4'  you  of  the  result  of  the  deliberations  of  the  Senate  on  tliJ 
draught  article  submitted  for  tlieir  advice  by  the  I'resident  of  tlie  UiiitcJ 
States.  It  appeared  from  this  dispatch  that  the  Senate  had  agreed  tl 
advise  and  con.sent  to  the  adoi)tiou  of  the  i)ropo.sed  article,  witii  tli{ 
substitution  for  the  third  and  fourth  paragraphs,  of  two  paragraphs, 
follows: 

"And  whereas  the  (lovernment  of  the  United  States  has  conteiKltil 
that  tlie  .said  claims  were  included  in  the  Treaty ;  and  whereas  boii] 
(loverninents  adopt  for  the  future  the  ]>rinciple  that  claims  for  reiii(itf| 
or  indirect  lo.sses  should  not  be  julmitted  as  the  result  of  the  failure  i 
observe  neutral  obligations,  so  far  as  to  declare  that  it  will  hereal'td 
guide  the  conduct  of  both  Governments  in  their  relations  with  eatl 
other,  now,  therefore,"  &c. 

In  communicating  this  disjiatch  to  me  you  inquired  whether  any  possi 
ble  inter[)retation  could  be  given  to  the  propo.sed  article  in  the  form  i| 
which  the  Senate  have  moditied  it,  taking  all  its  parts  together,  wliici 
would  i)revent  taking  before  the  Arbitrators,  to  be  considei'cd  by  tlioii 
in  making  their  award,  that  iiart  of  the  (;laim  called  "direct  claims" i| 
the  ca.se,  which  relates  to  the  cost  of  pursuit  and  capture  of  cruisers. 

I  have  now  the  honor  to  state  that  I  must,  on  behalf  of  Her  3Iajest,\'' 
Government,  decline  to  answer  the  question  which  you  have  put  to  iii| 
as  to  the  eHect  of  the  article  as  altered  by  the  Senate,  or  to  state  wlia: 
possible  coiistruciioii  it  may  bear. 

Her  .Majesty's  Government  are  of  opinion  that  the  definition  as  tlioic 
in  expressed,  of  the  principle  which  both  (Jovernnients  are  ])repare(l tJ 
adopt  i'or  the  future,  is  so  xague  that  it  is  impossible  to  state  to  wliatitj 
is,  or  is  not  applicable,  and  they  believe  that  it  would  only  h'ad  to  futiiiJ 
misunderstandings.     That  llcr  .Alajesty's  Government  i)i'efer  the  arlitlJ 
as  they  had  draughted  it,  but  have  no  olyjection  to  accept  the  article  in  tli| 
form  proposed  by  the  Senate,  with  the  substitution  of  the  words  "ot 
like  nature"'  for  the  words  "for  remote  and  indirect  losses,"  juid  lli 
su!)stitiilioii  of  the  words  "such  want  of  due  diligences  on  the  i)art  "I 
neutral"  Ibi'  the  woi'ds   "the  i'ailure  to  observe  neutral   oblignt'oiM 
The  article  would   then  run   thus:    "And   whereas  both  Governnuiil 
adojit  lor  the  lutiire  the  juinciple  that  claims  of  a  like  nature  should  iinj 
be  admitted  as  the  result  of  such   a  want  of  due  diligence  on  the  yx 
of  a  iKMitral.  so  lar  as  to  declare  that  it  will  liereaft<-r  guide  the  condm 
i>f  both  Governments  in  their  relaticms  with  each  other.' 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  iiigln'st  coiisidciation,  sir,  your  nin: 
obedient,  liunible  ser\aiit, 

GUAN  villi:. 

Geni'inl  S('1Ii;n;'K, 


,j  ■ 


AUIUTRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE  RESPECTTVG  GENEVA  ARBITRATION.   109 


nal  of  Arbitration  u 
umI  at  AVasliiiifftniiiii 
occodiiigs  of  tiiat  Til 
t  is  to  say 


M)ON,  ^[(t)j  27,1872, 

abinct  tin;  tclcs'nil'iiiJ 
I  to  Jiie  tliis  aftcniodii] 
of  tlie  Senate  on  tliJ 
'resident  of  the  UnitJ 
Senate  had  ayroedta 
osed  artiele,  with  tlit) 
of  two  i)ara}i;rai)hs. 

States  has  ('ontemy 
y  ;  and  whereas  boiil 
iiat  claims  for  renioti 
■esult  of  tlie  faihuei 
that  it  will  hereiifti'l 
I"  relations  with  oiKil 

wmI  whether  any  possij 
article  in  the  form  iij 
[)arts  together,  wliidi 
e  considered  by  tlioii 
'd  "direct  claims" ij 
aptui'c  of  crnisers, 
lalf  of  Her  .Ma.j('st,\'' 
you  have  put  to  ml 
ate,  or  to  state  wlnrf 

le  definition  as  tliorcj 

Mits  are  prepared  tl 

e  to  state  to  what  ill 

d  only  lead  to  fiitiiil 

Mit  i)i'efor  the  arlidi 

cept  the  article  in  tlit| 

of  the  words  "of; 

M't  losses,"  and  1li| 

'lice  on  the  i)art  '>l';i| 

neutral   (»bli,i;iit'()ii<.| 

both  <lo\-eniiii('iit>[ 

vc  nature  should  iiol 

ilif^cnce  on  the  |i;ii'| 

cr  ■.'•nide  the  condin'l 

heV; 

ation,  sir,  your  iiios!| 

(iRANVILbi;, 


[luclosurc  4  in  \o.  47.] 

General  Schench  to  Earl  Uranville, 

Legation  of  the  United  States', 

London,  May  28,  1872. 

Mv  Loud:  I  received  late  last  evening  your  note  of  yesterday's  date, 

iforiiiiny  me,  in  relation  to  the  form  of  preamble  wliicli  you  had  in- 

tiiictod  Sir  Edward  Thornton  to  communicate  to  ]Mr.  Fish,  as  that  to 

jliicli  Her  ]\[iijest.v's  (lovernmenfc  were  ])repared  to  agree  in  case  a  con- 

loiition  should  be  concluded  embodying  the  draught  article,  that  you  had 

Tjiicc  learned  from  Sir  Edward  that  Mr.  Fish  would  prefer  the  omission 

W  the  words  "  in  order  that  the  same  may  be  communicated  to  the  Tri- 

(iniiil  of  Arbitration  appointed  under  tlie  first  article  of  the  Treaty 

)j>iied  at  Washington  on  the  8th  of  3Iay,  1871,  for  the  guidance  of  the 

Iroccedings  of  that  Tribunal,"  and  that  you  had  informed  Sir  Edward 

||i(iiiiton  that  he  might  tell  i\Ir.  Fish  that  Her  ^Majesty's  (lovernntent 

jiil  not  insist  on  the  words  which  ho  desires  to  omit  in  the  preamble,  if 

|c  will  give  Sir  Edward  Thornton  assurance,  in  writing,  that  *^^he  Gov- 

ninu'iit  of  the  United  States  will  agree  to  the  form  of  note  which  you 

H'oposod,  and  of  which  you  sent  me  a  copy  on  the  .'  tli  instant,  com- 

jiiiiicating  the  convention  on  the  part  of  the  two  .'.jvernuicnts  to  the 

hil)unal  of  Arbitration  at  Geneva. 

Jn  the  same  note  you  add  that  Sir  Edward  Thornton  has  a  general 
Jill  power,  enabling  him  to  sign  a  convention,  and  instructions  to  do  so 

the  proposals  contained  in  that  note  and  in  your  other  letter  of  the 

niie  date  are  agreed  to. 

Immediately  after  the  receipt  of  your  note  last  night  I  communicated 

31r.  Fish,  by  telegraph,  information  of  that  instruiition  you  had  giveii 

Sir  Edward  Thornton  in  regard  to  omitting  the  words  in  question 

[•oiu  the  preamble.    I  had  previously,  and  early  in  the  day  yesterday, 

lographed  to  Mr.  Fish  the  information  you  had  already  given  me  ver- 
|iilly,  that  Sir  Edward  Thornton  had  a  full  power  to  sign  a  convention. 

Ihit  I  remark  now,  that  the  instructions  to  Uer  Majesty's  Minister  at 

rashington  ai)pear  by  your  note  to  have  been  given  to  be  exercised  on 

condition.  I  beg  to  know  from  Your  Lordship  if  I  am  to  understaiul 
liat  Sir  Edward  Thornton's  authority  to  sign  i;;  limited  by  his  instruc- 
lons,  ami  only  to  be  used  in  the  case  that  the  proposals  contained  in 
jour  notes  addressed  to  me  yesterday  arc  agreed  to  by  the  United 
Mates. 

1  have  tlie  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  ni}'  Lord,  Your 
Lordship's  njos  obedient  servant, 

IJOBT.  0.  SCIIEXCK. 

The  liight  lion.  Eabl  GkANVILLE. 


'  [Inc'losnre  5  in  No.  47.] 

General  SclieneJc  io  Earl  Granville. 

Legation  oi^'  the  Unitim)  STAT];^<, 

London,  May  28,  1872. 

Mv  Lord  :  1  received  last  night,  between  !>  and  10  o'clock,  your  note 
liloriiiiiig  me  that  you  had  lost  no  tinn  in  laying  before  the  Cabinet  the 
|i'k'gr.i[>hic  dispatch  from  Mr.  Fish,  wliicli  1  communicatod  to  you  yes- 


m 


mi 

'    S '  w  J 

■■■'  +•■" 


v:,^' 


t,  ^;•<■.■  <      . 


'.r  I   ■*  I 


:-f.  ;*,■■■ .  ■ 


■m 


'fA-^: 


f-i;^.'^.;- 


110      CORKESPONDEXCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 

tci'day,  iiifoniiin,!;'  you  of  the  rosult  of  tlic  del ibcrat ions  ,)f  tlio  Sciiaiti 
oil  tlic  (liiui^iit  article,  siibiuitted  for  tlieir  advice  I)y  the  Piesident ii| 
the  United  States. 

Voii  remark  that  in  eoinmuiiieatiiij;'  tliat  dis|)ateli  to  you  I  iii(|uiivl 
wliether  any  possibU'  interpretation  could  be  j>iven  to  tlie  proposhjl 
article  in  the  form  in  which  the  Senate  have  niodilU'd  it,  takin,!;'  all  ii| 
parts  together,  which  would  prevent  taking'  before  tiie  Arltitrators,  to! 
considered  by  them  in  makin,;;'  their  award,  that  part  of  tluM-laiin  callcni 
'' direct  claims'"  in  the  case,  which  relates  to  the  (!ost  of  ])u  suit  am] 
cai»tuie  of  cruisers:  and  you  state  that  you  must,  on  belrdf  of  ili' 
3IaJesty's  ( Joverutnent,  decline,  to  answer  tliat  question  as  '.o  the  etftMil 
of  the  article  as  altered  by  the  Senate,  or  to  static  what  possible  conf 
stvuction  it  may  bear. 

I  will  luM'e  oidy  int  u'pise,  an  to  that  «|Ui»s!-i(vi,  to  s;iy  that  the.  piiiiitl 
was  brou.i!,iit  to  your  L')rdship's  attention,  in  eonnectiou  with  tin] 
delivery  to  you  of  tiie  artic'le  as  t!u>  Sunate-  had  jiroposed  to  aiir.Mid  it,| 
because  I  desired  by  the  inepiiry  to  remind  you  tliat  whatever  inij;Ii 
become  the  form  in  which  the  article  mij>ht  ultimately  be  adopted,  itj 
could  not  be  intended  to  open  any  question  in  relation  to  claims  to  tlitf 
introduction  ot  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  had  never  objectci 
'•notwithstanding'  the  doubt  liow  far  those  claims,  thoujih  mentioiieill 
(birin,i>'  the  (conferences  as  direct  claims,  came  within  the  proper  scope  nij 
arbitration." 

1  quote  the  language  of  your  Lordship's  note  to  me  of  the  20th  ofl 
March  last.  The  (loverninent  of  the  United  States  is  of  opinion  thatj 
the  language  of  the  Senate  cannot  be  interpi'eted  to  exclude  those  claims; 
but  lam  now  instructed  to  say  that  the  article,  in  whatever  form  adoptcdl 
as  to  the  proceeding  before  the  Arbitrators  at  (leneva,  must  be  nndei  [ 
stood  to  prevent  only  the  ])resentation  of  the  chvinis  enum<;rated  in  tkj 
second  contention,  of  Her  Majesty's  Government. 

Your  Lordship  in  this  note  inoceeds  to  inform  me  that  Her  ]\Lijest,v'i>| 
Government  are  of  opinion  that  the  delinition,  as  expressed   in  tliel 
Senate  amendment,  of  the  principle  which  both  Governments  sire  pre 
l)ared  to  adopt  for  the  future  is  so  vague  that  it  is  impossible  to  stiitcl 
to  what  it  is  or  is  not  applicable,  and  they  believe  that  it  would  onlvj 
lead  to  future  misunderstandings.     That  Jler  Majesty's   Governineii;| 
])refer  the  article  as  they  had  draughted  it,  but  have  no  objection  to  accei 
the  article  in  the  form  proposed  by  the  Senate,  with  the  substitution  nfl 
the  words  "of  a  like  nature"  for  the  words  "ibr  remote  or  indiroctj 
losses,"  and  tl.e  substitution  of  the  words  "such  want  of  due  diligoiiccl 
on  the  ])art  of  a  neutral"  for  the  words  "the  failure  to  observe  neutrai 
obligations."      Tin;   ai'ticle  would  then  run  thus:  "And  whereas  botli 
Governments  adopt  for  the  future  the  ])rincii)le  that  claims  of  a  likii 
nature  should  not  be  admitted  as  the  result  of  su(di  a  want  of  due  dili 
gence  on  t!u'  j^art  of  a  iieutral,  so  far  as  to  declare  that  it  will  herealrr;] 
guide  the  conduct  oi"  both  (iovernments  in  their  relations  with  cimIi 
other," 

I  hastened  last  night  to  telegraph  the  fidl  substance  ol'rill  tiiis  (Miii- 
mnnication  to  ?ili'.  I'Msli, 

1  am  as  yet  wilhout  any  answer  to  that  telegram,  and  without  in 
struction  or  iiifbi'nie.tion  as  to  th(>  disjiosition  of  my  (bu'ernmeiH  t^' 
enleitain  or  consider  th<^  chiinges  which  Her  Majesty's  (btveniiiiciif 
propose  to  the  Senate's  amendment.  15ut  1  am  not  i)re|)ared  to  belicM 
that  the  modillcation  can  be  asscMited  to  by  tln^  President,  Such  chiinp| 
of  language  would  alter  {ho  whole  character  of  the  agreement. 

I  cannot  permit  to  pass  uinpiestioned  the  ex])ression  of  lh(>  o])iiiiiin| 


ARBITRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


Ill 


rations  ,>r  tlu^  Sciiuti 
0  l>y  tilt'  Pii'siilciitJ 

U'.h  to  you  I  iii(|iiinii 
veil  to  tlio   propDNiJ 
ilu'd  it,  taiciii,y  all  it| 
the  Ariiitiiitors,  toll 
irt  of  t!i(M-laiiu  callcill 
cost  ot*  pii  suit  f 
ist.  on  heir. If  of  lli| 
•stioii  as  '.o  tlK^  ct't'cf 
i'.  wliat  possiUk'.  coul 

to  s:iy  that  the  pi)iii 
ionneutiou   with  tliJ 
roposiMl  to  iun«ii(l  it,| 
iiat  whatever  ini!-'! 
lately  be  adopted,  i!| 
itioM  to  claims  to  tlit 
had  never  objectcil, 
IS,  thoujih  inentioiid 
n  the  proper  scope  m 

to  nie  of  the  20th  nil 
tes  is  of  opinion  that| 
Bxdude  those  chiiiiis; 
atever  form  adopted,! 
iieva,  must  be  under 
IS  cuum<>rated  in  tluj 

>  that  Her  .Alajest.v'J 
,.s  expressed  in  tbel 
)veriiments  are  \)\\>\ 
impossible  to  statcl 
that  it  would  oiilvl 
jesty's   fJovernineiitl 
o  objection  to  accept! 
the  substitution  (ill 
remote  or  indirectl 
lilt  of  due  diliu'eiiiT] 
'.  to  observ<'  neutriii 
And  whereas  botli 
ii:it  claims  of  a  likil 
a  want  of  «bie  dili 
at  it  will  herealrc; 
clations  with  ciicli 

nee  ol'  nil  tiii-^  (m.. 

HI,  and  without  in  I 
my  (lovcrnmeiir  \A 
'sty's  (Jovernniciitl 
)reparcd  to  belicM 
ent.     Such  cliiiii;;" 
•rcement. 
■;ion  of  the  o])iiiiiii!| 


[f  Her  .^lajesty's  (iovtrnment  as  to  the  vaji'ueness  of  the  detinition  ot 
lie  iirinciple  which  botii  Oovcinments  are  prejiared  to  adopt,  and  of  tlie 
Jiii]»()ssii)ility  of  statiiij>' to  '.hat  it  is  or  is  not  applicable,  altlion<;h  in 
l('plyinj>'  1  may  but  in  ef.ect  I'cpeat  what  I  said  to  you  in  an  interview 
)f  tin-  U'fh  of  this  month,  and  of  wlii(;h  1   uave  you  a  memoiaiKhim  in 

h'ilin;,'. 
What   the   United  States  has  all   alon.n'  lu'oposed  as  the  ^^round  on 

iliicli  tiie  two  (loveriiments  miyht  sately,  honorably,  and  consistently 
ju'ct,  is  the  establishment  of  a  rule,  to  be  the  law  or  (contract  in  tlie 
Itture  between  them,  declarinjji'  that  neither  of  them  shall  demand  com- 
V'ii>ation  from  the  otliei'  for  remote  in'  indirect  losses  arisiiij^'  out  of,  or 
\)c\i\'^  tlie  result  of,  failure   in  the  observance  of  neutral  ol>li,uatioiis. 

[liis  rule  should  be  the  exjiression  of  a  princiid*'  to  be  applied  to  cases 
Is  tliey  may  arise ;  and  ouj;ht  not  to  c(msist  in  a  refcreiK^e  to  cases  or 
[ircuiiistances  which  mayor  may  not  ever  occur,  and  be  limited  to  those 
Instances,  without  application  to  other  cases  in  which  the  damajic  done 
}r  alle;;e(l  may  be  eciually  or  further  removed  from  the  act  of  which  it 
[s  assumed  to  be  the  result. 

They  do  not  see  that  there  is  vaf>ueness  in  such  a  lule  or  dilllculty  in 
Its  application  to  facts,  beyond  what  .may  be  said  of  any  other  priiu;i[)le 
)iiibudied  in  statute  or  treaty  law. 

Consider,  my  Lord,  what  is  the  history  of  that  difference  b«'tween  our 
[wo  Governments  which  has  led  to  the  ne<i;otiation  for  a  supplemental 
lioaty  article. 

The  United  States  have  put  forward  in  their  Case  at  Geneva,  for  the 
Consideration  of  the  Arbitrators,  certain  claims,  to  which  the  British 
fioverniuent  objects.    Great  Britain  founds  her  objection  to  those  claims 

jot  merely  on  her  interpretation  of  the  Treaty,  according  to  which  sh(^ 
Insists  they  are  inadmissible,  but  also  on  the  ground  that  such  claims 
ire,  from  tlieir  very  character  and  nature,  sucli  as  ought  not  to  be  pre- 
kouted ;  "  that  such  claims,"  to  use  the  emphatic  language  of  Your  Loiil- 
pip, "  are  wholly  beyond  the  reasonable  scope  of  any  treaty  of  arbitration 

whatever,  and  that  to  submit  them  for  decision  by  the  Tribunal  would 
1)0  a  measure  frauglit  vvitli  pernicious  consequences  to  the  interests  of 
ill  nations  and  to  the  future  peace  of  the  world.''  That  Uer  Majesty's 
tJovernment  "  cannot  see  tliat  it  would  be  advantageous  to  either  country 
to  render  the  obligations  of  neutrality  so  onerous  as  tliey  would  become 
If  claims  of  this  nature  were  to  be  treated  as  proper  subjects  of  iuterna- 
fioiiid  arbitration." 

What  is  that  nature  of  the  claims  in  question  which  makes  them  so 
)hjecti()nable  to  Her  Majesty's  (iovernment  ?    They  are  indirect,  re- 
^iiote,  consequential. 
Will  you  then  unite  with  us,  asks  the  Government  of  the  U.:ited 

jtati's,  in  an  agreement  lounded  upon  that  principle  for  which  you  con- 
lend,  and  as  broad  as  the  priiicii>le  itself,  "  that  claims  for  remote  or 
indirect  losses  should  not  be  admitted  as  the  result  of  failure  to  observe 
licntral  obligations;"  and  will  you  unite  with  us  in  a   dechiratioii  that 

liis  principle  '"will  hereafter  guiile  the  conduct  of  l)oth  Govcrniiients  in 

iH'ir relations  to  each  other  :'"  Can(ireat  IWitain  coiitinue  to  reply  that 
h\iiile  she  desires  to  make  such  a  rule,  a  rule  consistent  with  the  posi- 
tion she  has  taken  against  tlii^  whole  class  of  remote  or  indirect  claims, 
[i.^ainst  a  neutral,  sll!^  must  persist  in  (lontining  it  in  terms  to  only  such. 
iH'ciiliar  deseriptions  of  that  class  of  indirect  claims  as  hapi)cn  now  to 
w  the  subject  of  cont<'nti()n  between  her  and  the  United  States,  and 
hvliich  particular  kind  of  claims  may  never  have  existence  again  .'  Will 
|t  not  seem,  if  this  be  the  limit  of  the  agreement,  that  the  oliject  is  not 


n 


m 
"I 

I 


m 


\*9 

m 

if 


M 


*:■■' 


■1  '.-.      1  .. 
I  v..  1       ' :.', 


•.  ,       I- 


112      CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 

to  aflinn  and  viiidicivte  an  important  principle,  but  only  tofliulan  oxpil 
(lient  for  cxdudinj''  from   consideration,  or  extiuftiiisiiinj?   altogftliwj 
certain  matters  wiiicli  are  unfortunately  now  a  present  cause  of  coiitin 
versy  ' 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  tlui  highest  consideration,  my  LokI] 
Your  Lordship's  most  obedient  servant, 

]{()r,T.  C.  SCIIKNCK, 

The  lJi"ht  Honorable  the  ILVKL  CIKA^'VII.LE. 


.'J  ;■■. 


I"  ■•'■ 

r  ■ , 


[Iiiclosurc  (i  ill  >«'().  47.] 

Earl  dfani'lUe  to  GcniTal  Sclirnch: 

Foreign  Office,  London,  Mai/  28,  1S7J. 
Sir:  In  reply  to  the  iiKjuiry  contained  in  your  letter  of  this  dayl 
resptictinpf  tiie  limitation  i)laced  upon  the  immediate  exercise  by  Si 
Edward  Tliornton  of  the  general  fidl  power  to  sign  treaties  with  wliiclj 
he  is  provided,  I  have  the  honor  to  accpiaint  you  that  while  we  are  f;ii| 
from  asserting  that  the  form  of  article  proposed  by  Her  Majesty's  (iovl 
eminent  is  notcai)able  of  further  improvement  upon  suflicient  cause  btf 
ing  shown,  Sir  Edward  Thornton  has  no  instructions  to  use  his 
powers,  except  in  accordance  with  the  arrangement  we  have  proposidj 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  most  obedient,  humble  servant, 

GRANVILLE. 
General  R.  C.  Sciienck. 


[liiL'losurc  7  in  No.  47.] 

Earl  Granville  to  General  Schenck. 

Foreign  Office,  London,  May  28,  1872. 

Sir  :  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the  letter  which  you  havJ 
done  me  the  honor  to  address  to  me,  in  reply  to  my  letter  of  yestenliivj 
in  which  I  informed  you  that  I  had  laid  before  the  Cabinet  the  tekl 
grapliic  disi)ateh  from  "Slv.  Fish,  stating  the  result  of  the  deliberatioii| 
of  tlie  Senate  on  the  draught  article  submitted  by  the  President  fortlui; 
advice. 

As  you  acquainted  me  to-dny  that  you  had  not  received  any  ropll 
from  Mr.  Fish  to  your  communication  of  my  letter,  I  think  it  bettor  if 
defer  till  I  hear  from  you  the  view  taken  of  my  letter  by  ^Ir.  Fish,  bt 
fore  replying  to  the  observations  contained  in  your  letter. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  yournuKi 
obedient,  humble  servant, 

GEANVILLK. 

General  K.  C.  Sciienck. 


[luclosiiio  H  ill  No.  47.] 

Earl  Granville  to  General  ScJienel: 

Foreign  Office,  London,  Man  -'">?  '^^''• 
Sir:  I  think  i^  desirable  at  once  to  address  to  you  the  following oli| 
.servations,  in  addition  to  what  is  stated  in  my  letter  of  yesterday  : 


%-,-^-- 


ARBITRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.       113 

Ilcr  Miijest.v's  (■^lOverninoiit  proposed  :im  article  on  the  snggestioii  of 
[10  Aiiu'iuraii  (lovcniiiient. 

That  article  has  been  ainemled  by  the  Senate. 

Her  ^rajesty'sCioveriunent  arc  not  able  to  lintl  for  it,  a.s  amended,  any 
leans  or  standard  of  interpretation. 

Tiie  words  appear  to  include  the  wilful  misconduct  of  a  neutral  as  well 

a  failure  from  want  of  due  diligence. 

Tlioy  cannot  suppose  this  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  American.  Govern- 

lienl. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  hold  all  the  claims  made  by  the  United 
tates  for  losses  which  were  the  direct  results  of  the  acts  of  vessels 
lentioned  in  the  Treaty,  to  be  claims  for  "  indirect  losses  as  the  result 

the  failure  to  observe  neutral  obligations." 

Her  j\Iajesty's  Government  hold  many  of  the  claims  for  the  losses 
)ove  mentioned  to  be  claims  for  losses  which  are  "  remote  "  as  well  as 
liudirect,"  while  "residting  from  a  failure  to  observe  neutral  obliga- 
loiis." 

Her  Majesty's  Government  are  unable  to  signify  an  assent  to  a  form 

article  of  which  they  cannot  for  themselves  discover  the  scope,  and 

|ith  respect  to  which,  owing  probably  to  the  difticulty  of  telegraphic 

jmmunication,  they  have  not  been  apprised  of  the  meaning  which  the 

[merican  Government  attaches  to  it,  or  of  the  reasons  which  have  led 

its  being  proposed. 
j  If  the  Government  of  the  United  States  think  it  desirable  to  give  the 
fforinatiou  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  wish  to  receive  on  these 
Bints,  and  also  think  that  for  that  purpose  some  adjournment  of  the  time 
'  meeting  of  the  Arbitrators  of  Geneva  should  take  place.  Her  Majesty's 
[overnment  would  be  ready  to  agree  to  any  suitable  i)roposal  for  that 
jiirpose,  which  they  presume  could  only  be  done  by  a  short  treaty  be- 

reen  the  two  governments. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most 

)odieut,  humble  servant, 

GRANVILLE. 

General  E.  C.  Sciienck. 


'tm 
iff 

i 


tter  bv  Mr.  Fish,  bt 


GHANVJLLK. 


[luclosure  0  in  No.  47.] 

General  ISchonclx:  to  Earl  Granville. 

Legation  of  the  United  Stat-es, 

London,  May  28,  1872. 
I  My  Lord:  I  received  at  8  o'clock  this  evening  your  note  of  this  date, 
which  you  say  you  think  it  desirable  to  address  to  me,  as  you  therein 
bceed  to  do,  some  observations  in  addition  to  what  is  stated  in  your 
Itter  of  yesterday. 

[I  shall  hasten  to-night  to  communicate  the  whole  of  this  note  by  tele- 
'aph  to  my  Goveriuncnt. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  my  Lord, 
lour  Lordship's  most  obedient  servant, 

llOBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 
t  The  Eight  Hon.  Earl  Granville. 

8  G  A 


i 


} 

^P" 

1  Y  ^ 

4  ,1  ■ 

1 

1 

ii|;: 

'  i 

:      1 

4 

*( 

^ 

1, 

1  ' 

* 

s.::m^. 


:■&'::■ 


■■r3..  ji,;  ■  ,  , : 


V.  ;..;r 


114      CORRESPONDENCE   RESI'ECTIMG   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 

No.  48. 

General  SchencJc  to  Mr.  Fixh. 

[Ti'lcf^iaiii.] 

London,  May  31,  1872.     (]{oceived  7.35  u.  in, 
At  1.*.4.')  this  Mioniiiig  Lord  (iranville  sends  mo  the  following,  diitij 
30tli : 

\TAirl  if ranviUe  to  General  Schcncl:] 

"Siu:  I  am  nnable  to  admit  the  accuracy  of  the  description  whid 
Mr.  Fish  has  given  in  tlie  telegraphic  message  which  yon  have  coinniJ 
nicated  to  me  today  of  the  course  which  Uer  IMajesty's  Governiiiei| 
has  pursued,  or  of  the  objects  which  they  have  had  in  view.  I  can 
attribute  such  a  misunderstanding  to  the  imperfection  unavoidallj 
attendant  on  negotiations  by  telegraph,  which  makes  it  difficult  tJ 
either  party  clearly  to  understand  the  views  and  arguments  of  tlf 
other.  This  circumstance  seems  to  strengthen  the  reason  for  the  siil 
gestiou  which  I  made  in  favor  of  an  adjournment  of  the  meeting  of  tJ 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  Geneva.  IJer  Majesty's  Government  hai 
stated  their  objections  to  the  words  proposed  by  the  Senate.  I  liai 
already  informed  you  that  they  did  not  pretend  that  the  words  suggpstJ 
by  themselves  were  incapable  of  improvement,  and  they  have  re.solvJ 
to  make  a  suggestion  which  they  trust  will  meet  the  views  of  both  Gcj 
ernments.  I  proceed  therefore  to  put  you  in  possession  of  a  draii<:l| 
article,  of  which  I  inclose  a  copy,  and  which,  if  adopted  by  the  Goven 
ment  of  the  United  States.  Uer  Majesty's  Government  would  be  prepan 
to  accept : 

"'Whereas  the  Government  of  Iler  Britannic  Majesty  luis  contend^ 
in  the  recent  correspondence  with  the  Government  of  the  United  Statfj 
as  follows,  namely,  that  such  indirect  claims  as  those  for  the  natiocJ 
losses  stated  in  the  Case  presented  on  thei)art  of  the  Government  of  tlj 
United  States  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  Geneva,  to  have  licJ 
sustained  by — the  loss  in  the  transfer  of  the  American  commerciil 
marine  to  the  British  flag,  the  enhanced  payments  of  insurance,  1 
prolongation  of  the  war,  and  the  addition  of  a  large  sum  to  the  costii 
war  and  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion — firstly,  were  not  includfj 
in  fact  in  the  Treatj*  of  Washington ;  and  further  aiul  secondly,  slioiilj 
not  be  admitted  in  principle  as  growing  out  of  the  acts  committed 
particular  vessels  alleged  to  have  been  enabled  to  commit  depredatioi| 
upon  the  shii)ping  of  a  belligerent  by  reason  of  such  a  want  of 
diligence  in  the  performance  of  neutral  obligations  as  that  whiclri 
imputed  by  the  United  States  to  Great  Britain  ;  and  whereas  the  (!o| 
erument  of  the  United  States  has  contended  that  the  said  claims  \vfl| 
included  in  the  Treaty;  and  whereas  both  Governments  adopt  fort 
future  the  principle  that  claims  against  neutrals  for  remote  and  iudiibj 
losses  should  not  be  admitted  as  resulting  from  the  act  of  belligeieiij 
which  such  belligerents  may  have  been  enabled  to  commit  by  reasoiil 
a  want  of  due  diligence  on  the  part  of  a  neutral  in  the  perfonnanoi'ij 
neutral  obligations  so  far  as  to  declare  that  this  princii)le  will  heroiitl 
guide  the  conduct  of  both  Governments  in  their  relations  with  w 
other:  now,  therefore,  in  consideration  thereof,  the  President  oft 
United   States,  by  and  with   the  advice  and  consent  of  the   Seiwi 
thereof,  consents  that  he  will  nuike  no  claim  on  the  part  of  the  Unitfj 
States  before  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  Geneva,  in  respect  of  tlj 
several  classes  of  indirect  losses  hereinbefore  enumerated." 


i 


ARRITRATION. 


deceived  7.35  a.  ui.j 
tlie  following,  (latf| 

vl:\ 

:he  description  wiiicj 
ich  you  have  coinuia 
lajesty's  Governinei] 
d  in  view.  I  can 
irfection  unavoidalili 
makes  it  difiicult 
nd  arguments  of  tlJ 
tie  reason  for  the  siij 
of  the  meeting  of  til 
y's  Government  liaij 
y  the  Senate.  I  hi 
it  the  words  suggost 
id  they  have  resolvtl 
he  views  of  both  Goij 
iSsession  of  a  drau};| 
loptcd  by  the  Goven 
ent  would  be  prepan 

lajesty  has  conteiidfj 

t  of  the  United  Statfl 

hose  for  the  natioiii 

he  Government  of  tlj 

leneva,  to  have  bed 

American  commcrcii 

;nts  of  insurance,  1 

ge  sum  to  the  costij 

y,  were  not  incliultj 

and  secondly,  slioiilj 

e  acts  committed 

commit  depredatioii 

such  a  want  of  m 

lis  as  that  which  f 

nd  whereas  the  Goi 

the  said  claims  wq 

imeiits  adopt  fort 

remote  and  iiuliibl 
le  act  of  belligerenl 
commit  by  reason | 
M  the  perforniaiicoij 
inciple  will  hereattj 
relations  with  m 
le  President  of  tlJ 
isent  of  the  Seiiai 
e  part  of  the  Unit([ 
va,  in  respect  of 
lerated." 


CORRESPONDKNCn   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION.       115 

Xo.  49. 

Mr.  Fiah  to  (Jencrnl  Sdienek. 
[Tolegnun— Extriict.] 

Wasiiington,  May  31, 1872. 

As  stated  in  a  previous  disjiatch  which  you  communicated  to  LFer 

liijesty's  Government,  unless  a  treaty  be  signed  and  ratified  by  this 

Joveriiment  this  day  so  as  to  be  transmitted  to  London  by  to-morrow's 

teauier,  for  ratification  by  Her  Majesty,  it  will  not  be  i)ossible  that  it 

lecome  operative  in  time  to  be  laid  before  the  Arbitrators  at  Geneva  on 

|r)tli  June,  on  which  day  the  existing  Treaty  recpiires  that  the  arguments 

)e  jireseiited. 

Your  telegram  reached  me  this  morning  within  thirteen  hours  of  the 
leparture  of  the  last  conveyance  by  which  a  copy  of  a  treaty  can  leave 
lore  to  take  the  steamer  of  to-morrow. 
It  would  be  impossible  for  the  Senate,  within  that  time,  to  consider 
lie  important  change  proposed  of  the  form  and  terms  in  which,  after 
9iig  deliberation,  they  have  agreed  to  advise  the  rresident  to  negotiate 
[lie  proposed  article. 
Her  Majesty's  ministry  has  already  been  apprised  of  this. 
To  i)ropose  a  change  of  language  involving  a  change  of  object  and  of 
feet  at  this  late  period,  is  therefore  practically  to  defeat  any  agreement. 
Lord  Granville  admits  that  the  language  of  the  article  tirst  proposed 
[y  llcr  Majesty's  Government  might   be  improved.    The  President 
links  that  the  same  may  be  said  of  that  now  proposed  by  Lord  Gran- 
Jille ;  it  ajipears  to  him  to  leave  a  large  class  of  very  probable  cases 
jiiprovided  for,  and  he  holds  that  the  result  of  bad  faith,  or  of  wilful 
lisconduct  toward  either  of  these  two  Governments,  w  ill  uever  be  the 
|ubject  of  pecuniary  compensation. 
I  have  suggested  to  Sir  Edward  Thornton  that  we  sign  the  article  as 
ecoiuiuended  by  the  Senate,  and  thus  put  it  in  operation,  and  allow  the 
Arbitration  to  proceed. 

It  is  not  believed  that  there  is  any  such  difference  of  object  between 

he  two  Governments  in  the  definition  and  limitation  which  each  desires 

place  upon  the  liability  of  a  neutral,  as  to  prevent  an  agreement  on 

le  language  in  which  to  express  it,  if  time  be  allowed  for  an  exchange 

[f  views  by  some  other  means  than  the  telegraph. 

There  is  no  probability  of  a  practical  question  on  the  extent  of  that 
labilitv  arising  immediatelv. 


No.  50. 
(jcneral  Schencl-  to  Mr.  Fish. 


fo.  24(!.] 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 
Lomton,  June  1,  1872.    (Received  June  13.) 
Sir:  I  transmit  herewith  a  copy  of  Lord  Granville's  note  to  me  of 
fbe  30tli  May,  communicating,  on  the  part  of  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
leiit,  another  amended  draught  article,  received  at  2.45  yesterday  morn- 
ing, and  of  which,  both  note  and  amended  article,  I  sent  you  the  full 
text  by  telegraph  early  the  same  morning. 


«vti1 


l,;^ 


i'v'":;  ■■ 


.•'•':.',  "> 


'■I ' 


l^-. 


116      CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARHITRATION. 

I  transmit  also  a  copy  of  my  note  to  Lord  (Iranvillo,  aciknowUMlirJnj 
tlie  receipt  of  tlie  above-mentioned  eonimunieation,  and  inforniin<,^  h 
that  I  would  ijiimediately  tele^rapli  his  note  and  the  new  draught  to  yo 
and  a  copy  of  my  note  to  him  sent  at  midni<,dit  hist  ni;,'lit,  eonveyiii;' 
liim  a  copy  of  your  tele;iram  of  yesterday  received  at  that  hour. 

It  is  now  afternoon,  and  1  have  as  yet  iieard  nothing  from  His  \m\\ 
ship  iji  answer,  or  in  rehition,  to  that  teh^gram. 

1  have  tlie  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

nOlVL  C.  SCUKXCK.l 
Hon.  Hamilton  Fish, 

ticvretary  of  State,  Wanhittjiton,  J).  C. 


♦  ■  ^' 


[lufloMurc  1  ill  No.  no.] 
General  Schcncli  to  Earl  OranviUe. 

58  Great  Cumberland  Tlace,  Hyde  Park,  W., 

Friday,  2.45  a.  m.,  May  31,  lS7l'.  I 

My  Lord:  I  have  just  beeu  called  from  my  bed  to  receive  your  iiottl 

dated  the  30th,  putting  me  in  possession  of  another  form  of  a  draugli 

article  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  would  be  prepared  to  acceiij 

if  adopted  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

I  will  hasten  to  communicate  your  note  aud  the  draught  to  Mr.  Fisli  1 
telegraph,  so  that  they  aiay  reach  Washington  at  the  earliest  possib 
hour  for  consideration  there. 

I  am,  my  Lord,  with  the  highest  consideratiou,  your  Lordship's  moij 
obedient  servant, 

KOBT.  C.  SCHENCK, 
The  Eight  Honorable  the  Earl  Granville,  ttc,  cOc,  tCr. 


■mis. 


[Inclostu'c  2  iu  No.  50  ] 

General  ScJienclc  to  Earl  Granrille. 

58  Great  Cumberland  Place, 

May  31,  1S71J,  midnifjhtA 
My  Lord:  I  have  just  received  from  Mr.  Pish  a  telegraphic  dispattlij 
of  which  I  hasten  to  communicate  you  the  inclosed  copy. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  my  Lord,  with  the  highest  consideration,  yoic 
Lordship's  most  obedient  servant, 

EOBT.  C.  SCHENCK, 
The  Eight  Honorable  the  Earl  Granville,  Iv.  CJ.,  tCc,  il-c,  d'c. 


■  'fV 

■  ■  f . 

'    • 

V  ';i 

■i. 

: "    '"  1 

ii : 


%i 


Xo.  51. 

Mr.  Fifth  to  General  jScheuck. 

[Telegram.] 

Wanhinyton,  Jane  1,  1871'.^ 

The  fifth  article  of  the  Ticaty  requires  the  written  aguments  to 
presented  by  the  15th  June. 


RHITRATION. 


COKRESPONDEXCK   RKSPF.CTIN'G   GKNEVA   ARItlTRATION.      117 


your  Lordship's  moa 


\)H,  June  1,  1872. 


Tlif  lul.joiiriiiiKMit  of  tlu<  Trilmnal  without  iimcnditijj  that  artido 
foiild,  lis  \vc  arc  advised,  lu'actically  amount  to  a  discontiuiuiuce,  and 
|i;it  luticlt'  can  lt(^  anicinU'd  only  l)y  a  new  treaty. 

Tlic  (tpinion  attril)utc'd  to  ino  rcyardin^i;-  the  Senate  artieh'  is  very 
jconci'tly  represented. 


No.  r.L'. 

(It  iicntl  ^cluiu  V  lo  .]fr.  Fhh, 
[Telcf>niiu.] 

LoxD()>',  June  1,  1S7J.     (Iteceived  3.30  i).  ni.) 

V(Mir  tele;irani  of  yester(hiy  was  re(reived  at  niidniylit,  and  imnie- 
iitely  coniiunnieate*!  to  Lord  (iranville,  who  iias  just  sent  me  an  answer 
lollitus: 

[Eavl  GnmiuUe  to  General  Schencli.] 

"Sru:  In  reply  to  the  conuaunication  which  1  received  troni  you  this 
loriiiii;;',  I  bey  to  inlorni  you  that  ller  Majesty's  CJoveruinent  hold  that 

tlie  article  adopted  by  the  Senate,  cases  of  bad  faith  and  willful  mis- 
^iiduct  are  brought  within  the  scope  of  the  proposed  agreement,  which 
L'als  with  pecuniary  compensation.  It  appears  to  be  the  view  of  the 
[overnment  of  the  United  States  that  such  cases  are  not  a  fit  subject  of 
pcuniary  com])ensation,  and  I  am  informed  by  sir  Edward  Thornton 
jiat  ^Ir.  Fish  is  of  opinion  that  the  article  adopted  by  the  Senate  is 
jpnblc  of  improvement.  The  President  thinks  tluit  the  article  last  ■ 
roposed  by  Iler  Majesty's  Government  is  also  capable  of  improvement. 
Jie  American  Government  state  that '  it  is  not  believed  that  there  is 
ly  such  difference  of  object  between  the  two  Governments  in  the  deti- 
[tiou  and  limitation  which  each  desires  to  place  u]>on  the  liability  of  a 
putral  as  to  prevent  an  agreement  on  the  language  in  which  to  express 
I  if  time  be  allowed  for  the  exchange  of  views  by  some  other  means 
Jian  the  telegraph.'  The  British  Government  must  decline  to  sign  a 
Jcaty  which  is  not  in  conformity  with  their  views,  and  which  does  not 
jpross  the  principles  which  the  American  Government  believes  to  be 
itertaiaed  by  both  parties  to  the  negotiation,  and  which,  immediately 
[tor  being  signed,  wonld  become  the  subject  of  negotiation  with  a  view 

its  alteration.    In  this  position  they  repeat  their  readiness  to  extend 
^e  time  allowed  for  the  Arbitrators  to  meet  at  Geneva,  and  they  have, 

you  are  aware,  provided  Sir  Edward  Thornton  with  full  powers  to 
|}iu  a  treaty  for  this  purpose,  or  they  are  willing  to  concur  in  a  joint 
^plication  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  once  to  adjourn  the  pro- 
codings  of  the  Arbitration,  which  they  are  advised  it  is  within  the  com- 
Kouoo  of  the  Arbitrators  to  do  upon  such  an  application  witliout  afresh 
lout  \." 


Xo.  53. 

Mi:  Fish  to  General  f<cJt(ncJi. 


r  Telegram.] 


^VASIII^'GTON,  June  2, 1872. 


Although  by  a  literal  construction  of  the  Senate  article,  cases  of  bad 
kith  or  wilful  misconduct  may  be  held  to  be  withiu  its  scope,  it  is  in- 


^i 
"•*' 


..|  V'7tM?: 


m 


'■; ',  '  ■' 


mr:.' 


•*•";■ 


118      CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 

conceivable  that  such  cases  can  ever  be  the  subject  of  cli{)lomatic  com  I 
spondence  with  a  view  to  pecuniary  compensation  between  two  l*owersj 
such  as  those  now  concerned. 


i:.-^-.?: 


iMv:-' 


■  ••   -;  t'- 


v'-'i- 


■^  ■•;>;:'^' 


No.  54. 

(lenerul  Schencl-  to  Mr.  Fish. 
[Telegram.] 

London,  Jimc  2,  1872.    (Received  1.20  o'clock. 

Your  telefcram  of  yesterday  just  received.  I  will  communicate  ittol 
Lord  Granville  to-morrow.  Must  I  say  it  is  final  ?  They  hold  here  tliail 
after  the  Arbitrators  have  received  the  arguments  from  the  Agents  ool 
the  15th  they  may  adjourn  for  a  time,  and  would  doubtless  do  so  ( 
joint  request  of  the  two  Governments ;  that  the  power  to  adjourn  is  in  I 
cident  to  the  character  of  the  Tribunal,  reference  being  had  only  to  tlif| 
seventh  article  of  the  Treaty,  which  requires  a  decision  to  be  made,  i 
possible,  in  three  months.  In  this  view  I  certainly  coucur,  but  have  noil 
expressed  my  opinion  to  any  one.  If  the  ministry  were  to  enter  intol 
any  such  arrangement,  putting  in  their  argument  and  trusting  to  tliJ 
chance  of  negotiating  a  supplementary  article  afterwards,  they  raiistj 
expect  denunciation  in  P.irliament;  but  that  would  be  their  concernl 
not  ours.  I  heard  from  Davis  last  week  that  our  argument' would  kl 
ready  by  the  15th,  and  Lord  Granville  told  me  theirs  would  be. 


No.  55. 


rs:^f.:v;?;. 


I- 

"- 

h. 

'■•"•"t' 

• 

• 

s    ..  . 

■  V"' 

m 

[:•■ :»' 


Mr.  Fish  to  General  Scluncl: 
[Telograiii.] 

Washington,  June  2,  1872. 

Coniidential.  We  concur  in  the  opinion  that  the  Arbitrators  havetliJ 
power  to  adjourn  either  on  tlieir  own  motion  or  on  the  motion  of  eitlifl| 
party. 

If  the  arguments  be  put  in  on  both  sides  on  lith,  and  Groat  r.ritaiii| 
move  for  an  adjournment,  tliis  Government  will  concur. 


2s(».  5(J. 


OeneraJ  i<vh('ncl<  to  Mr,  Fimh. 
[Telegram.] 

London,  Jnne  3,  1S72.    (Received  11.25  j).  in.i 

I  found  tliis  morning  I  had  partly  misunderstood  Lord  Granville, 
ller  ^Majesty's  Government  are  oi"  opinion  that  the  Arl)itrators  iiui<; 
meet  on  tlie  15th,  but  that  It  is  not  lu'cessary  for  the  agents  to  i)resiii'| 


i•r^ 


RBITRATION. 


lived  1.20  o'clock.) 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION.       119 

hio  arji'iuiicnts  at  that  time.    Sncli  delivery  of  arguments  tliey  think 

fiiay,  by  joint  agreement,  be  postponed.    Tbis  conclusion  was  under 

.i(l\  loo  of  Sir  Eonndell  Palmer.    I  asked  Lord  Granville  if  be  would 

Consider  tbis  point  again  wben  in  Cabinet  to-day,  and  tell  me  how  they 

lioiij;lit  the  parties  could  proceed  under  the  fifth  article  without  such 

llolivery  of  arguments.     It  seemed  to  me  that  the  Arbitrators  need  not 

lieccssarily  assemble  then  any  more  than  they  did  to  receive  the  counter 

pases.    Perhaps,  however,  the  parties  might,  by  mutual  agreement, 

raive  the  presentation  of  arguments  at  that  date,  being  a  matter  which 

Related  not  to  the  Arbitrators,  but  to  a  duty  to  be  iierformed  by  their 

)\vii  agents. 

Jle  has  just  sent  me  the  following  communication  : 

\ Earl  Granville  to  General  8ohenc1c.\ 

''  Sill :  In  reply  to  the  question  which  you  put  to  me  this  morning,  I 

nave  to  state  to  you  that  Her  jMajesty's  Government  consider  that  the 

irbitrators  must  no  doubt  meet  on  tlie  latbof  June,  but  the  fifth  article 

k  tlie  Treaty,  though  it  contemplates  the  delivery  of  written  arguments 

^11  that  day,  does  not  make  the  further  prosecution  of  the  arbitration 

Impossible,  if  on  that  day  neither  parti/  presents  any  written  argument. 

Che  Arbitrators  have  full  power  to  adjourn,  aiul  they  have  also  full 

|)o\ver  to  call,  after  tlie  15th,  for  any  further  statements  or  arguments, 

rritten  or  oral,  from  time  to  time  as  they  may  think  lit.    If,  therefore, 

both  parties  agree  not  to  present  any  argument  till  a  later  day  than  the 

btb,  requesting  the  Arbitrators  to  adjourn,  and  if  the  Arbitrators 

[liould,  on  any  day  to  which  they  may  have  ad.journed,  accept  the  argu- 

leiit  which  both  parties  may  then  wish  to  tender  to  them,  this  will  be 

jiiite  witliin  their  power." 


I 
< 

I- 

i 


ii-K>^''\^ 


No.  .")7. 
Mr.  Fish  to  General  ^Schencl'. 


1,  and  (^ircat  P.ritniJ 


21(5.]  Dkpaiitjient  of  State, 

Wanhington,  June  3,  1S72. 
Sir:  Your  dispatch  Xo.  233  of  the  ISth  ultimo,   inclosing  copy  of 
liiliplement  to  the  London  Gazette  of  the  day  previous,  has  been  received. 
I^liis  copy  of  the  Gazette  brings  to  the  Department  tlie  first  noticeithas 

adof  10  111  Granville's  note  of  the  I3tb  ultimo,  which  ])rol)ably  appeared 
III  i>riiit.  submitted  to  the  Pritish  public,  long  befon^  it  reached  Sir 
^Mlward  Tbornton,  to  whom  it  purports  to  be  addressed. 
Tilt'  avowed  i>urpose  of  Earl  Granville's  note  is  to  notify  Sir  Edward 

iHiriitoii  tliat  ii-.'r  ^Majesty's  Government  liave  reliaini'd  from  continu- 

i;;''aii  argumentative  discussion  with  the  (roveniment  of  the  United 
States,  upon  the  scope  and  intention  of  tli<>  articles  in  the  Treaty  of 
^Vasjiiiigtoii,  relating  to  the  Arbitration  on  the  'Alabama  claims;'"  and 
io]tiit  liiiiiiii  ])ossession  of  the  viewsof  tbat  Governiiient,  with  reference 
iti  solium  jiassages  which  occur  in  my  note  to  you  of  the  Kith  of  Ajjril. 
[)!'  course  it  will  not  be  assuined  tbat  the  object  of  its  publication  in 

ii'cat  Uritiaii,  in  advance  of  its  possible  receipt  by  the  gentleman  for 
Kviiose  instruction  it  was  written,  bad  any  connection  with  tbe  inliuenc- 
\\\<^  of  ])iiblic  opinion  in  I^urope,  or  near  tbe  expected  scene  of  the  Ge- 
lii'va  Tribunal. 


'"Ill 


l^h;-f-;^''':' 


t.. 


..!'■  " 


120      CORRESPONDENCE    RESrECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 

It  never  was  the  desire  of  tliis  Goveriiinent  to  open,  much  lesst 
proloii;;",  (liscuNsion  witli  Jler  Majesty's  (loveriiiiiciit  upon  the  scope  aiii;| 
intention  of  the  articles  in  the  Treaty  of  Wasliiiif;ton  relatiufj  to  tlie  Ar 
tration  on  tlie  Ahibama  <'hiinis.    The  (lovernnient  of  the  Unitd  StiitfJ 
lioped,  as  itliad  reason  to  believe,  that  before  the  anj^ust  Tribunal,  appointj 
ed  in  a<!Cordance  v  ith  the  terms  of  the  Treaty  of  AVashins'tou  to  "exaiiiiii| 
and  decide"  upon  the  matters  in  dispute  between  the  United  States  aiij 
llreatUritian, and  designate<l  as  the  "Alabama  claims,"  tlieTreatywduli] 
be  its  own  interpreter,    llestinj;'  upon  this  mofit  reasonable  convictid 
it  has  been  the  earnest  wish  of  the  President  (a  Avish  often  exprcssfil 
in  the  corresjiondence  of  this  l)e])artment  on  the  subject)  to  remit  all 
discussion  as  to  the  s(;ope  and  meanin{>-  of  the  Treaty  to  that  Tribuiiiilf 
Had  this  feeling  been  recij)rocated  by  ller  JMajesty's  Government,  tlij 
discussion  which  has  occurred  between  the  two  Governments  upon  tli| 
true  meaning  of  the  Treaty  might  have  been  in  a  great  measure  avoidtd 
Upon  the  present  point  of  contention  between  this  Government  and  tkl 
of  Great  Britain,  namely,  whether  the  claims  for  "  national  losses"  poiml 
larly  denominated  "  indirect  damages,"  are,  by  the  terms  of  the  Treiitjf 
fairly  within  the  province  for  the  consideration   and  decision  of  tli| 
Geneva  Tribunal,  the  United  States  it  is  believed  will  lose  nothing! 
the  fullest  discussion  of  the  cpiestion. 

In  my  note  to  you  of  the  10th  of  April,  I  had  occasion  to  say,  "It  il 
diflicult  to  reconcile  the  elaborate  line  of  argument  put  forward  by  Earl 
Granville  to  show  a  waiver  of  claims  for  indirect  losses,  with  the  idel 
that  at  the  outset  of  the  negotiations  ITer  Majesty's  Government  did  uoi 
consider  the  matter  of  public  or  national  injuries  as  the  basis  of  an  ouij 
standing  claim  against  Great  Britain,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,] 
His  Lordship's  instruction  of  the  13th  ultimo,  now  before  me,  doesiioj 
serve  to  lessen,  much  less  to  remove,  the  dilliculty  thus  suggested,  ij 
this  instruction  Earl  Granville,  with  great  skill  and  ingenuity,  recajiittj 
lates  the  previous  arguments  on  the  question,  and  arranges,  witliitj 
tinite  care,  the  facts  upon  which  he  desires  that  the  propositions  aii| 
vaneed  by  ller  Majesty's  Government  should  rest.  Passing  over, 
certain  tone  of  criticism,  which  may  with  propriety  be  ascribed  to  tliJ 
pressure  t»f  public  business  upon  his  Lordship  at  the  present  moment,.} 
jiroceed  to  notice  some  statements  in  his  Lordship's  note,  from  which  1 
draws  inferences  in  my  opinion  wholly  unwarranted  by  the.  prenii.^iJ 
1  do  this  that  you  may  be  put  in  possession,  not  only  of  all  new  facts oJ 
the  subject,  but  also  of  the  views  of  this  Government,  in  order  thatyof 
may  be  able  to  make  such  use  of  them  in  your  future  intercourse  on  tli!| 
subject  with  ller  IMaJesty's  (lovernment  as  the  occasion  may  deiniiin'l 

Si)eaking  of  the  allusion  in  my  instruction  of  the  lOth  of  A]>nl  t 
Earl  Bussell's  dis]iatch  of  ]\Iarch  1'7,  J.S().'5,  to  Lord  Lyons,  J<]arl  (riiu. 
ville  says:  "Sir.  Fish  omits  the  wonls'of  which  the  Confederate  loiiiii' 
an  additional  i)roof;'  which,  taken  with  tlu'  context,  show  that  Mr.  AdaiiiJ 
was  then  sjjeaking  not  of  the  case  of  the  'Alabama,'  but  of  the  ii,ssij;| 
ance  in  nunu'y  an»i  materials,  Avhich  he  consid(>red  was  imjiroperly  m| 
dered  to  the  Coni'ederate  Slates  by  blockade-running  and  the  cotton  loaii,! 
Jt  is  true  that  tho.ve  words  weve  omitted;  there  was  no  reason  wiiy  tlitf 
.should  have  been  (luoted;  they  refer  to  .some  other  and  additional  i)i('i| 
of  the  conspiracy  which  Mr.  Adams  was  ])ointing  out,  as  tendiii;;! 
bring  on  a  war  with  a  view  to  aid  the  Confederate  cause.    ]\ry  olijwj 
was  not  to  fortify  what  ]\li'.  Adams  had  said,  but  to  show  that  he  lii'.i 
notilied  to  (Jreat  JJritain  that  her  conduct  was  aiding  the  Confedeia!] 
cause;  with  or  without  the  omitte<l  words  the  i'xtract  establi.shes 
notice.      The  cumulative  evidence  which  they  all'ord  of  the  conspiiwl 


Liven. 


|wj:iiii 


ARI5ITKATI0N. 


COKRESPONDENCH    RESPIX'TING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION.       121 


()  open,  imic'h  IcsstJ 
it  n[)oii  the  scope  auj 
11  relating?  to  tlie  Arb 
t  of  the  Uiiitd  Statfl 
;ust  Tribunal,  appoiiiif 
ishinston  to  "exaiuiiJ 
Ik'  Uiiitetl  States  aiiil 
ins,''  tlu'.Treaty  woulJ 
easonable  convictiocj 
Avisli  often  expicssJ 
e  subject)  to  remit  al] 
aty  to  that  Tribuiml 
ty's  Goveninieiit,  tliJ 
oveiiiments  upon  tliJ 
i-eat  measure  avoi(14 
tioverniueut  and  tlial 
national  losses"  poinil 
i  terms  of  the  Trt'iiW 
and  decision  of  tli| 
I  will  lose  nothing  1 

C'casion  to  say,  "  It 
t  put  forward  by  Earl 
t  losses,  Avitli  the  idcl 
s  Government  did  noi 
as  the  basis  of  an  oufl 
of  the  United  States, 
w  before  nie,  does  ivi 
'  thus  sug^gested.   iJ 
d  ingenuity,  recapitiil 
id  arranges,  AvitlikJ 
the  pi'opositions 
est.     Passing  over; 
be  as(;ribed  to  tliJ 
le  i)resent  moment, :[ 
note,  from  which  1 
ed  by  the  prciiii«'J 
y  of  all  new  facts  ol 
it,  in  order  thatyoj 
re  intercourse  on  tliii 
casion  niav  deiiiaini 
le  IGtli  of  Ainil 
d  Lyons,  J<]arl  (rnii.| 
le  Confederate  loiiui' 
how  thatMr.AdanJ 
iia,'  but  of  the  assisi 
was  improperly  leiif 
and  the  cotton  loan] 
s  no  reason  why  tlRi 
and  additional  \m\ 
g  out,  as  teiidiii^M 
;e  cause.    ^\y  olt,ioi| 
o  show  that  he  liil 
ling  the  Coufe(l(.'ia:| 
ract  establishes 
rd  of  the  conspiiac] 


Itliiit  3lr.  Adams  notified  to  Lord  IJussell  is  uiiiiiipoitant  to  the  notice 
loivon.  The  suggestion  of  the  omission  seems  to  be  an  ingenious  avoid- 
irnice  of  a  material  issue  in  the  case  by  raising  another  of  no  possible 
Isigiiiiicance. 

JUit  in  this  connection  it  is  dilticult  to  imagine  by  what  ]>rocess  of 
'divination  Lord  Granville  assumes  that  3Ir.  Adams  was  speaking  with 
(rtlerciu'e  to  blockade-running,  wlii(;h  is  not  even  alluded  to  in  Lord 
ljiu.s.seirs  note,  and  seems  to  be  an  interpolation  wholly  nnsustaiiied  by 
jtlio  narrative  of  Lord  liussell,  whosi^  general  amiability  of  character 
land  friendship  for  the  United  States  have  never  yet  subjected  him  to 
jtlie  suspicion  of  withholding  anything  that  iiiigiit  be  used  to  their  dis- 
liidvantage  or  di  '.redit.  A  perusal  of  Lord  ItiisselFs  note  (which  is 
Lppended  licreto,  coi>ied  from  the  British  IJlue  Look,  2sorth  America, 
|>o.  1,18(14,  p.  U)  shows  the  main  object  of  the  interview  which  Mr. 
lAdainshad  sought  with  Lord  liussell  to  have  been  the  i>resentation  of 
la  (lisi)atch  of  Mr.  Seward,  complaining  of  the  '.'.tting  out  and  the  depreda- 
Itions  of  the  "Alabama"  and  the  ''  Oreto,"and  other  cruisers,  to  which  the 
Iconversation  was  mainly  contined.  These  things  Mr.  Adams  thought 
anade  manifest  a  consi)iracy,  of  which  the  "  Confederate  loan  was  an 
ladditional  proof,"  i'l'd  lie  tlius  brought  the  existence  of  a  consiiiracy 
with  a  view  to  prolonging  the  war  to  the  notice  of  the  IJritish  Govern- 
Jiient. 

I  ap])eal  to  Lord  llussell's  note  to  determine  whether,  as  I  supposed, 
land  as  Lord  Granville  denies,  J\h'.  Adams  referred  to  the  "  Alabama" 
las  among  tli'3  causes  tending  to  produce  the  exasperation  which  might 
llead  to  a  war  "  with  the  view  to  aid  the  Confederate  cause,"  an<l  whether, 
las  Lord  Granville  asserts,  and  I  doubt,  ^Ir.  Adams  Avas  speaking  of 
|>'  blockade-running." 

If  (as  1  think  that  Lord  Itussell's  note  establishes)  the  "Alabama" 
land  other  cruisers  were  the  subject  of  the  conversation,  there  was  no  occa- 
Isiou  on  my  part  to  adduce  the  Confederate  loan  as  "additional  proof.'' 
JTlie  fact  tliat  it  is  mentioned  as  "  additional  proof"  shows  that  it  was  not 
Itlie  main  proof  of  which  JVIr.  Adams  had  been  speaking.  Lord  Gran- 
Ivillc  has  unhappily  misconceived  the  subject  which  formed  the  leading 
(topic  of  the  interview  between  ]\h'.  Adams  and  Lord  liussell. 

The  depredations  of  the  cruisers  alioat,  tlie  continued  building  of  ships 
jfor  the  Confederates  in  British  i)orts,  the  manning  those  shijis  with 
Ijjiitish  sailors,  and  the  unconcealed  desire  on  the  part  of  the  cons[>ira- 
Itors  for  the  success  of  the  Confederates,  and  for  a  monopoly  of  the  tradt! 
jof  the  Southern  States:  this,  in  the  estimation  of  Mr.  Adams,  was  the 
lovidence  of  the  existence  of  the  conspiracy  of  which  the  Confederate 
|loan  was  incidentally  referred  to  as  "  additional  proof." 

Larl  Granville  mentions  that  the  dispatch  of  the  14th  of  February, 

JlSliO,  and  that  of  I'd  May,  LS(i7,  both  from  Mr.  Seward  to  Air.  Adams, 

(were  neither  of  them  cominnnicated  to  ller  ^Majesty's  (Joveriinu'iit.     If 

jliis  Lordship  means  that  these  notes  were  not  oiiicially  communicated  to 

(ills  Government  ut  the  time  of  their  dote,  he   is  unquestionably  right, 

Ibiit  then  Ik;  controverts  wiiat  was  not  alleged.     1  had  sai<l  "  the  ol'licial 

Icoirespondetice  of  this  Government  whicl   was  ])ublishe(l  and  is  within 

jtlie  knowledge  of  ller  .Majesty's  Government;"  this  Lord  (Jiaiiville  does 

liiot  deny,  and  this  1  re-assert.     A  volume  containing'  the  notes  referred 

t(i  was  placed  in  the  possession  of  the  IJritish  .loiiit  Commissioners,  and 

[was  again  formally  (lelivered  to  the  agent  of  ller  Majesty,  at  Geneva, 

ill  December  last.     Lord  (iiaiiville  himself  more  than  once  (piotes  from 

jit.  thus  establishing  what   1  have  asserted,  that  tin*  contents  of  that 

VdUiiiM-  weie  within  the  knowledge  of  ller  .Maji'sty's  Government. 


.,1 

:    • 


■  '  ■  < 


!.''■! ; 


.  > 


'mm-o' 


[I  ^i- 


122       (CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 

Lord  (iranville  refers  to  a  disi)atcb  to  Mr.  Seward,  dated  17th  Febj 
ruary,  18(5!),  in  \viiicli  Mr.  Keverdy  Johnson   reviews   the  objections  I 
made  in  the  United  States  to  the  convention  iiegfotiated  by  him.    His 
Lordship  makes  a  long  extract  from  this  dispatch,  referring  to  "  jvage 
707  "as  that  on  which  it  appears.    The  two  dispatches  which  lie  liadl 
intimated  had  not  been  communicated  to  Her  Majesty's  Government, 
appear  in  tije  same  vohime  from  which  he  tlius  <inotes,  the  one  at  page| 
028,  the  other  at  page  G7;J. 

At  the  coiichision  of  this  extract,  his  Lordship  proceeds:  ''If  3Ii.| 
Johnson  was  mistaken  in  the  view  thus  decidedly  expressed,  it  might 
be  expected  that  some  notice  would  have  been  taken  of  so  important  | 
nn  error." 

When  it  is  remembered  that  the  convention  of  which  Mr.  Johnson  I 
was  then  speaking,  and  in  the  negotiation  of  ^i■hich  he  had  acted  so 
prominent  a  part.,  was  rejected  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  a  oraiidi  [ 
of  the  treaty-making  power  of  this  Government,  it  can  scarcely  be  said, 
even  with  plausibility,  that  Mr.  Johnson's  expression  of  his  own  views,! 
in  the  dispatcii  from  which  Eai'l  Granville  (piotes  so  liberally,  was  .allowed 
to  pass  unnoticed  by  this  Government.    The  vote  of  the  Senate  is  uu| 
derstood  to  have  shown  only  one  member  who,  from  Avhatever  can* 
approved  Mr.  Keverdy  Johnson's  Treaty.    Tlie  inference  may  be  I'airlyl 
drawn  that  no  other  Senator  shared  Mr.  Johnson's  views. 

The  opinion  obtained  somewhat  extensively,  in  this  country  at  least,. 
that  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  did  take  a  somewhat  decided  noticti 
of  the  Treaty,  and  that  in  rejecting  the  Treaty  itself,  as  the  Senate  did, 
it  swept  away  all  the  reasoning  and  argument  in  its  defense,  whidi| 
thenceforth  needed  no  further  notice.    But  however  this  may  be,  the  dis 
patch  wliich  Earl  Granville  quotes  establishes  the  fact  that,  at  its  date,| 
the  claims  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  employs  ]\[r.  Johnson's  dis 
I)atch  to  controvert  had  been  advanced.    Historically,  therefore,  tlievl 
were  then  known.    The  date  of  this  dispatch  is  more  than  two  years 
before  the  meeting  of  the  Joint  High  Commission.    '1  le  citation  of  tliisl 
dispatch  by  Her  Majesty's  (rovernment  would  seenr  lo  bring  to  it 
knowledge  of  the  existence  of  these  claims  anterior  to  the  meeting  of  tliel 
Joint  High  Commission,  although  we  have  elsewhere  been  told  that  their  j 
presentation  to  that  Commission  was  a  surprise. 

Soon  after  the  reception  of  this  dispatch  of  Mr.  Johnson's  by  his  Gov 
eminent,  he  ceased  to  be  its  rei)resentative  at  the  Court  of  St.  Jaiiie.'?. 
Those  wlu)  know  Mr.  Johnson's  social  and  genial  qualities  Avill  ]u)t  iii'| 
surprised  to  find  that  Lord  Granville,  not  content  with  citing  his  oflieial 
dispatch  in  explanation  of  the  conversation,  proceeds  to  cite  in  defonsej 
of  the  IJritish  side  of  the  (jueslion,  a  professional  letter  of  Mr.  Johnson, 
written  several  months  al'ter  his  relirenuMit  from  ])ublic  life. 

In  an  instruction  from  this  l)ej)artment  to  Mv.  Motley,  (Mr,  Johnson's  I 
successor  as  the  representative  of  this  Government,)  dated  IMayl.").  1S()!I.| 
informing  him  of  the  then  recent  action  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  Sates, 
on  what  was  familiarly  known  as  the  "Johnson-ChP'emlon  Treaty,"'  tlie| 
viewsof  this  Government  are  thusexprcssed  in  reli<t;<»ntotheclainis(»l'tlii' 
United  States  a,gainst  the  Jjritish<iovern men  t:  "  Upon  one  ])oint  the  Pres- 
ident and  the  Senate  and  tlie  ovcM'whelming  mass  of  the  iieojtle  arc  eon 
vinced,  namely:  That  the  Convention,  from  its  eharacter  and  terms,  m 
from  the  time  of  its  negotiation,  or  from  tlie  <'ircumstances  atteiMliiii.i 
its  nen'otiation,  would  not  have  removed  the  sense  of  existing  gricv 
ance,  would  not  have  atforded  real  substantial  satisfaction  to  the  peo- 
ple, Would  not  Imve  proved  a  hearty,  cordial  settlement  of  peii(liii;;| 


RBITRATION. 

rd,  dated  ITtli  Fob. 
iews  the  objections  I 
itiated  by  bim.  His 
,  vet'errinff  to  "i)age 
tches  which  lie  liadi 
jesty's  Governnipiit, 
tes,  the  one  at  i»aj,'e| 

I  proceeds :  ''  If  ^h. 
expressed,  it  iniglitl 
ken  of  so  important | 

whicli  Mr.  Johnson  I 
ch  he  had  acted  sol 
lited  States,  a  braiieb  I 
3au  scarcely  be  said, 
)U  of  bis  owu  views, 
berally,was  allowod 
)f  the  (Senate  is  im| 
)ni  whatever  cause, 
'rence  may  be  lairlyl 
views, 
his  country  at  least,! 
iwhat  decided  notice  I 
f,  as  the  Senate  did,! 
1  its  defense,  wLidij 
this  may  be,  the  Uis  I 
['act  that,  at  its  date,| 
s  ■Mr.  Johnson's  dis 
ally,  therefore,  tliov] 
)r('  than  two  years  | 

T  le  citation  of  this 
to  bring  to  it  a  I 
0  the  meeting  of  the 

been  told  that  tlioir 


n 


>hnson's  by  his  Gov 
'Oiirt  of  St.  Jaine.«,| 
lalities  will  not  ItH 
til  citing  hisolliciiil 
s  to  cite  in  defoiiMi 
ter  of  Mr.  Johnson, 
)li(!  life. 

Mev,  (Mr,  Johnson's 
dated  May  1.").  lSli',1, 
)f  the  United  Sates. 
endon  Treaty,"'  tliol 
itotheclaimsol'tlii'l 
« ()ne]»ointthel*ros- 
the  ]>eople  are  con 
leter  and  terms,  oil 
(stances  atleiidini;! 
of  existing  gricv- 
iction   to  the  iteiv 
ement  of  pending; I 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION.       123 

jiiostions,  but  would  have  left  a  feeling  of  dissatisfaction,  inconsistent 
kvitli  the  relations  which  the  President  desires  to  have  firmly  estab- 
ii.slicd  between  two  great  nations  of  common  origin,  common  language, 
common  literature,  common  interests  and  objects  in  the  advancement  of 
tlip  civilization  of  the  age.'' 

The  action  of  the  United  States  Senate,  as  above  shown,  and  the 
expression  Just  quoted  from  my  dispatch  ol  May  15,  18(»I),  to  Mr.  Mot- 
ley, furnish  a  correct  history  of  the  attitude  of  the  Government  of  the 
I'liited  States  in  relation  to  the  whole  subject,  at  a  time  contemporane- 
>ns  with  the  expression  of  ]Mr.  Johnson  upon  which  Earl  Granville 
blaces  so  much  reliance.  The  support  which  Her  ^Majesty's  Govern- 
Snoiit  can  derive  from  Mr.  Johnson's  dispatch  seems  to  nie  very 
slender. 

To  show  that  the  United  States  continued  to  maintain  this  posi- 
tion in  relation  to  the  claims,  it  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  call  your 
ittention  to  the  language  of  my  instruction  to  Mr.  Motlej'  of  Septein- 
[l)er  2"),  1S()!>,  in  which  occurs  the  following  expression  of  the  views 
then  entertained  by  this  Government :  "The  President  is  not  yet  pre- 
|))ared  to  pronounce  on  the  question  of  indemnities  which  he  thinks  due 
by  Great  Dritain  to  individual  citizens  of  the  United  States,  for  the 
jdestruction  of  their  proi>erty  by  rebel  cruisers  fitted  out  in  the  ports  of 
[heat  liritain.  Nor  is  he  now  prepared  to  speak  of  the  reparation 
Iwliicli  he  thinks  due  by  the  British  Government  for  the  larger  .account 
)f  the  vast  national  injuries  it  has  iniiicted  on  the  United  States,  l^ov 
kloo.s  he  attemi>t  now  to  measure  the  relative  effect  of  the  various 
I'anses  of  injury,  as  whether  by  untimely  recognition  of  belligerency, 
!l)y  suffering  the  fitting  out  of  rebel  cruisers,  or  by  the  supply  of  ships, 
[firms,  and  munitions  of  war  to  the  Confederates,  or  otherwise  in  what- 
Lwernianner.  *  *  *  All  these  are  subjects  of  future  con.sideration,  which, 
[when  the  time  for  action  shall  arrive,  the  President  will  consider,"  &c. 
[t  seems  strange  that  this  language  should  have  failed  to  make  evident 
the  existence  of  a  serious  complaint  on  the  part  of  this  Government  on 
icconnt  of  the  national  losses  and  injuries,  consequent  upon  the  in- 
[•reased  rates  of  insurance,  the  transfer  of  the  merchant  marine  of  the 
llTnited  States  to  Great  ]Jritain,  and  the  increased  expenditure  caused 
jby  the  ]>rolongation  of  the  war  for  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion. 

Tliat  the  idea  of  a  claim  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  for  indi- 
Irect  damages  for  national  losses  was  even  then  neither  new  nor 
lohsoure  in  the  minds  of  eminent  IJritish  statesmen,  I  lu'ed  but  refer 
las'aiu  to  the  opinions  ex])res.sed  by  Lord  (Jairns  and  Professor  liernard, 
|(lit()t('d  in  my  note  of  the  l(!lh  of  April.  I  see  no  reason  to  qualify 
Iwiiat  1  tlieu  found  occasion  to  say:  "At  every  stage,  theriMore,  of  the 
|]tr()ce(Mliiigs,  from  November,  ISIL',  when  iMr.  Adams  '.solicited  redress 
[for  the  national  injuries  sustained,'  to  th(\  date  of  the  Treaty,  this  (iov- 
|cniiiu'nt  has  kept  before  tiiat  of  (h-eat  IJritain  her  assertion  of  the  lia- 
l)i]ity  of  the  latter  for  wliat  are  now  termed  the  indirect  injuries" 
ll'lavl  (^iranville  surely  cann<»t  dismiss  the  uninterruiited  and  consistent 
Jasscrtion  of  the  claims  of  the  United  Srates  against  Great  IJrilain  for 
national  los.ses  sulfered  by  the  former,  in  ('onse((uence  of  a  disregard  of 
jnatiu;);:!  obligations  by  the  latter. 

It  remains  to  notice  one  otiier  i)assage  in  the  dispatch  of  Earl  Gran- 

Ivilh',  alluding  to  my  reference,  iu  the  not(^  ol  tiie  KJth  of  \\n\\,  to  the 

IwoiU  (tf  Professor  liernard.     llis  Lordship  says:  "Still  less  can  they 

(I lor  .Ala jesty's  Governiuent)  admit  that  because  ^Ir.   lUniiard,  in  the 

lltli  cliapter  of  bis  work,  gave  certain  extracts  from   3[r.    Fish's  dis- 

htatcli.  under  the  head  ot  'Alabama   claims,' that  dispatch  hecame  the 


S 


^  ■■! 


m 


i-n 


!^  V"]-  . 


v^^'' 


..H::;»'  -• 


f'-'  Iv'-'^'T  '  • 


?t.::H:  -' 


U' 

^i 


124      CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 

staiulanl  by  which  the  churns  known  as  Ahibama  chiiins  were  tobo| 
nien.su  led.'' 

Here  ayain  his  Loidsliij)  rei)els  Avhat  was  not  i)ioi)ose(l.    yiv.  JJernanll 
was  quoted  to  show  that  Jler  .Majesty's  Goveinuient  entered  upon  the 
negotiation  oftlie  Ahiharna  question  with  a  knowh'dge  of  the  existence 
of  tlie  chiinis  of  the  United  States  for  indiiectt  h)sses.     Tlieie  was  no 
suggestion  that  the  dispatch  which  Mv.  IJernard  (|uoted  was  to  hoa| 
standard  of  measure,  but  that  tlie  fact  of  (pioting  by  Mv.  BernanJ  sliowed 
knowledge  on  liis  i>art  of  the  existence  and  nature  of  <;hiinis  wliich  elsol 
where  was  denied.    His  Lordsliip  tlien  proceeds:    " It  liappens,  more- 
over, that  in  the  extracts  given  by  3Ir.  Bernard,  in  the  eliapter  to  wlii(li| 
Mr.  Fish  refers,  tlie  three  passages  cited  by  Mv,  Fish  in  his  present  dis- 
patch as  relating  to  indirect  injuries  and  national  losses  are  omitted." 

1  am  bound  to  suppose  that  the  repeated  ai)parent  denial  of  what  was  I 
nf>t  a.sserted  is  the  result  or  consequence  of  the  haste  in  which  his  Lord 
ship's  note  was  given  to  the  press.    In  mj' dispatch  to  you  I  had  not! 
said  that  the  passages  cited  by  me  were  among  the  «  itracts  given  by 
Mv.  Bernard  "in  the  chapter"  to  which  I  rel'erred.    ]\[y  language  Mas.! 
'*  in  this  icorh  he  summarizes  an  iu,struction,"&c.    I  have,  therefore,  to 
repeat  what  I  said,  namely,  that  the  passages  cited  by  me  appear  in 
Trofessor  Bernard's  work  ;  and  I  must  direct  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that,  while  Lord  Granville  denies  (what  was  not  as.serted)  that  these | 
passages  do  not  appear  in  a  certain  chapter,  he  does  not  deny  (what- 
ever may  be  the  impression  casually  produced  by  his  language)  what  1 1 
asserted,  iiamelj',  that  the  pas.sages  do  appear  in  Professor  Bernard's [ 
w  01  k.    I  refer  to  pages  492  and  493,  where  they  will  be  found. 

Beferring  to  a  former  dispatch  of  mine,  Lord  Granville  thinks  that  it  i.s  I 
apparent  that  the  "  vast  national  injuries"  presented  in  it  are  ascribed 
to  other  causes  than  the  acts  committed  by  the  Confederate  cruisers,  aud 
among  other  extracts  from  the  dispatches  he  quotes  me  as  saying,  "  iioi 
does  he  (the  President)  attempt  now  to  measure  the  relative  effect  of 
the  various  causes  of  injury,  as  whether  by  untimely  recognition  of 
belligerency,  by  suffering  the  lifting  out  of  rebel  cruisers,  or  by  tbe| 
supply  of  ships,  arms,  and  munitions  of  war  to  the  confederates,  or  other- 
Avise  in  whatever  manner."    With  regard  to  the  interview  of  Mr.  Adams  I 
with  Lord  Bussell,  in  iMarch,  18G3,  the  statement  by  the  latter  that  tlie 
former  had  referred  to  the  Confederate  loan  as  "iidditional  proofof 
what  Mv.  Adams  had  alleged  to  exist,  has  been  advanced  to  prove  that] 
Mr.  Adams  was  not  speaking  pf  the  subject  which  he  sought  the  inter- 
view to  discuss,  but  of  something  of  which  neither  he  nor  Lord  llussell] 
made  any  mention.    Here  the  argument  appears  to  be  of  the  samel 
nature,  that  because  some  "additional"  causes  of  complaint  other  tliiiul 
those  put  forward  before  the  Joint  Uigh  Commission,  and  b;  ore  the 
Arbitrators  at  Geneva,  have  been  advanced  in  some  correspondence  on 
the  part  of  this  Government,  that  a  certain  class  of  claims  are  iiot| 
included  under  the  head  of  "Alabama  claims." 

Lord  Granville  says,  "  Mr.  Fish  gives  as  a  rea.son  for  no  claims  for 
national  losses  having  been  'delined'  or  'formulated',  tliat  Lord  liussell| 
objected  in  July,  LSUy,  to  any  claims  being  put  forward." 

A  reference  to  my  di.spatch  to  you  of  the  Kith  of  April  last  sln)\v.<| 
me  a.s  giving  a  dilTerent  reason.    I  .said,  "  During  the  war  the.se  claims 
Avere cold  inually  arisingand  increasing,  and  could  not  then  be  detined,  ami  I 
the  time  for  formulating  them  would  notarise  until  a  willingness  to  enter 
upon  their  consideration  arose."    Lord  liusKell's  objections  were  men- 
tioned,  it  is  true,  in  addition  to  the  reason  above  <pioted,  but  althoiigii] 
"  a«lditiunal,"'  thev  are  not  therefore  exclusive. 


LBITRATION. 


CORRESPONDEXCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARHITRATION,       125 


claims  were  to  bo 

ised.    jSIv.  JJernanl 
t  entered  upon  tlit 
Ifje  of  the  existeiiw 
se>s.    There  was  no 
I  noted  was  to  he  a 
Ur.  Beriiiird  showed! 
fehiitn.s  which  else- 
"  It  liiippeiis,  nioio- 
he  chapter  to  which] 
ii  in  his  present  di,s| 
losses  are  omitted' 
t  denial  of  what  was] 
i  in  which  his  Lonl 
h  t'>  you  I  had  not  I 
le  »  <tracts  given  by 
My  language  was, 
;  have,  therefore,  tu 
;}d  by  nie  appear  in 
ittention  to  the  fact 
asserted)  that  these | 
»e8  not  deny  (what- 
is  language)  what  1 1 
Professor  Bernard's;  | 
il  be  found, 
ville  thinks  that  it  is  I 
hI  in  it  are  ascribed 
3derate  cruisers,  aud 
me  as  saying,  "  uoi 
e  relative  ettectoti 
Liely  recognition  of 
[cruisers,  or  by  tbe| 
ifederates,  or  other- 
view  of  Mr.  Adams  I 
the  latter  that  the 
additional  in'oof'of 
meed  to  prove  that  | 
lie  sought  the  inter- 
lie  nor  Lord  llussell  | 
to  be  of  the  same 
luplaint  other  tliuui 
ion,  and  b?  \)ro  the 
correspondence  on  I 
of  claims  arc  not! 

for  no  claims  ftn' 
I,  that  Lord  llussell 
Ird." 

April  last  shows] 
le  war  these  claims 
jhenbedeiined,aiid| 
Iwillingness  to  enter  ] 
Ijections  were  men] 
|)ted,  but  altlious'i 


Tlie  comnuuiications  which  the  British  High  (Commissioners  may  have 
linade  to  their  Government,  either  pending  the  negotiation  or  since,  can 
scarcely  be  urged  with  seriousness  upon  tliis  Government  for  acceptance 
in  tlie  construction  of  the  Treaty.    One  of  those  gentlemen  is  reported 
!is  saying  recently  "  that  we,  the  (British)  Commissioners,  were  distinctly 
resi)onsible  for  having  represented  to  the  Government  that  we  (they) 
understood  a  jn-omise  to  be  given  that  these  claims  were  not  to  be  put 
forward,  and  were  not  to  bo  submitted  to  arbitration."    lie  does  not  say 
by  whom,  on  what  occasion,  or  in  what  manner,  such  promise  was  made, 
lie  involves  all  his  colleagues  in  the  representation  made  to  their  Gov- 
ernment, that  such  promise  had  been  made.    But  this  seeking  'aliundCn' 
outside  of  the  Treaty  and  of  the  Proto(!ol,  to  establish  a  meaning  or  to 
[explain  its  terms,  has  had  the  ettect,  which  the  honorable  baronet  who 
jniade  the  declaration  anticipated,  to  raise  "  a  personal  qnestion,"  and  1 
Icannot  allow  this  reference  made  bj^  Lord  Granville  to  the  information 
Ifurnished  to  Uer  Majesty's  Government  by  Her  Higli  Commissioners  to 
Ipass  without  alluding  to  the  representation  which  SirStatford  Northcote 
|(one  of  those  Commissioners)  says  that  the  Commissioners  are  respon- 
Isible  for  having  made  to  their  Government. 

In  justice  to  myself  and  my  colleagues  on  the  American  side  of  the 
ICoiuniission,  I  must  take  this  occasion  (the  first  that  has  presented 
litself  since  I  have  seen  the  speech  of  Sir  Stafford  Northcote)  to  saj- 
Itbat  no  such  promise  as  he  states  that  the  British  Commissioners  repre- 
Iseuted  to  their  Government,  as  having  been  understood  by  them  to  be 
Imatle  by  the  American  Commissioners,  was  in  ftict  ever  made.  Tiie 
lollicial  connnunications  between  the  American  and  the  British  Commis- 
sioners (as  you  are  aware)  were  all  made  by  or  to  me  as  the  first-named 
lof  the  American  Commissioners. 

1  never  made  and  never  heard  of  any  such  promise,  or  of  anything 

Iresenibling  a  promise  on  the  subject  referred  to.    None  was  ever  made 

|by  me,  formally  or  informally,  oflicnally  or  unoflicially ;  and  I  feel  entire 

confidence  in  making  the  assertion  that  none  of  mj'  colleagues  ever 

Imade  any  promise  or  any  declaration  or  statement  approaching  to  a 

Ipromise  on  the  subject.  What  maj'^  have  been  the  understanding  of  Sir 

|Stafi:brd  Northcote,  or  of  his  colleagues,  I  cannot  undertake  to  say,  but 

that  the  American  Commissioners  gave  him  or  them  any  grounds  to 

linulerstand  that  such  a  promise  was  given  as  he  says  they  represented 

■to  their  Government  as  having  been  made,  I  am  bound  most  respect- 

jfuUy  but  most  emphatically  to  deny.    I  cannot  conceive  from  what  ht» 

■has  imagined  it,  as  the  only  direct  allusion  to  the  three  classes  of 

claims  (called  the  "indirect  claims")  was  that  made  on  the  part  of  the 

lAmerican  Commissioners  on  the  8th  day  of  March,  and  is  set  forth  in 

|the  3Gth  Protocol  in  the  words  in  which  it  was  made. 

The  British  Government  has,  in  the  correspondenite  which  has 
recently  taken  place,  endeavored  to  construe  the  withholding  of  an 
estimate  of  those  "indirect  claims"  in  connection  with  a  proposition  on 
behalf  of  this  Government,  which  was  declined  ]jy  the  Bntish  Commis- 
Isiouers,  into  their  waiver.  I  have  already  discussed  that  question,  ami 
|sball  not  here  again  enter  upon  its  refutation.  The  I'rotocols  and  the 
statement  approved  by  the  Joint  Commission  furnish  the  substi'.ntiul 
^)art  of  what  passed  on  that  occasion.  1  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive  what 
representation,  outside  of  the  statonuMit  made  in  the  3t»th  I'rotocol,  Sir 
jKtattbrd  Northcote  can  have  made  to  liis  Government.  He  refers  to 
jsonie  "personal  question,"  soniothing  which,  until  the  time  of  his 
laddress,  lie  and  his  colleagues  had  been  under  olHcial  restraint  from  dis- 
Iciissing,  bnt  the  Protocols  aiul  the  statement  to  which  I  have  referred 


■u 


m:i. 


m 


t  !1.^^ 


In:?;'::'-' 


V 


.»'•.:.■. 


'j  ; 

^■'^•'•^    '   ' 

?:l 

126      CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 

had  been  before  the  public  both  in  (Ireat  Britain  and  in  the  [Jiiitt'dl 
States  lor  nearly  a  year  before  his  declaration.    It  is  only  within  a  dm 
or  two  that  the  journals  containing  his  address  have  reached  nu;.  ] 
have  this  djiy  addressed  a  letter  to  yourself  and  to  each  of  our  colleagues  j 
on  the  iJomniission,  calling  attention  to  Sir  Stafford's  statement,  andiil 
due  time  may  make  public  the  correspondence. 

Eeturning  to  Lord  Granville's  dispatch  in  the  supplement  to  the  Loil 
don  Gazette,  1  tind  little  else  that  has  not  already  been  discussed  or  tliati 
requires  further  reply. 

It  may,  however,  be  noticed  that  the  remote  or  consetpiential  nature  oil 
claims  does  not  appear  to  have  been  a  serious  objection  to  the  preseiital 
tion  of  such  claims  on  the  part  of  the  British  Government  against  tlitl 
United  States.  Lord  Granville,  in  the  dispatch  in  the  suppleuiontl 
recalls  the  fact  that  the  British  Commissioners  repeatedly  put  fornariij 
the  Fenian  raid  claims,  but  not  until  the  3d  of  May,  (after  the  Americaii| 
Commissioners  had  declined  to  treat  on  them,)  did  the  British  Commijl 
sioners  admit  that  a  portion  of  the  claims  were  of  a  constructive  ainll 
inferential  character,  having  thus  persistently,  for  nearly  two  montliJ 
kept  before  the  Commissioners  those  constructive  claims.  It  is  noil 
necessary  now  to  consider  the  relative  admissibility  of  "coustru<;tive"  ainip 
of  "indirect"  claims,  as  the  ground  for  pecuniary  compensation  agaiusts 
government,  under  the  principles  of  International  Law. 

His  Lordship  again  refers  to  the  case  presented  by  the  British  Gov] 
ernmeut  to  the  Claims  Commission,  sitting  in  this  city,  for  the  Coufcdj 
erate  cotton  loan.  AVhile  (piestioning  the  accuracy  of  my  stateiueut] 
that  "the  United  States  calmly  submitted  to  the  Commission  the  deciJ 
ion  of  its  jurisdiction,"  he  proceeds  to  establish  its  accuracy  by  statinJ 
the  motion  made  by  the  Counsel  of  this  Government  to  dismiss  tlij 
claim. 

If  the  British  Government  will  follow  this  example,  and  move  tlitj 
Tribunal  at  Geneva  to  dismiss  the  claims  which  it  thinks  are  iiol 
included  in  the  submission  of  the  Treaty,  a  similar  result  may  kj 
obtained,  and  the  benetits  of  the  Treaty  and  of  the  principles  of  ]ioac« 
ful  arbitration  of  grave  differences  between  nations  may  be  established! 


I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 


IIAJIILTON  FISE 


General  Eobekt  C.  SmiENCK,  lOc,  tCr.,  d'c. 


Pi'---' 


[I]:clo8ure  in  No.  57.] 

Uarl  liiiSNcJl  to  Lord  Lyons. 

FoiJEiGN  Opfice,  March  27,  1S03. 
My  Lord  :  jMr.  Adams  having  asked  for  an  interview,  I  had  a  lou| 
conversation  with  him  yesterday  at  the  Foreign  Ottice.  lie  read  luoi 
dispatch  of  Mr.  Seward  on  the  subject  of  the  Alabama  and  Oreto. 
this  dispatch,  which  was  not  unfriendly  in  its  tone,  Mr.  Seward  coiiil 
plains  of  the  depredations  on  American  commerce  conimitted  by  vessel! 
titted  out  in  British  ports,  and  manned,  for  the  most  part,  by  BiitistJ 
sailors.  He  alludes  to  the  strong  feeling  excited  in  the  United  States 
by  the  destruction  of  her  trading  vessels  and  their  cargoes.  HJ 
repeats  the  complaint  conimou  in  Anuuica,  that  England  is  at  wit 


RBITRATION. 

I  and  in  the  LTnitwll 
is  only  within  a  (laj| 
avo  reached  nio. 
ich  of  our  coUeaguesj 
i's  statement,  and  ij 

)plenH>nt  to  the  Loil 
eu  discussed  or  tba!] 

ise<inential  nature  oil 
tiou  to  the  presental 
erunieut  against  tliti 

in  the  supplenieutl 
eatedly  put  I'ornariij 

(after  the  Americaiil 
the  British  Comiuis I 
f  a  constructive  aiiilj 

nearly  two  months,! 
•e  claims.  It  is  noil 
)f  "coustru<;tive"  ainlj 
upensatiou  against  a 

Law. 
L  by  the  British  Gov] 

city,  for  the  Coutedj 
cy  of  my  statenieutj 
lommissiou  the  (lecij 
i  accuracy  by  statinJ 
iment  to  dismiss  tlij 

mple,  and  move  tlil 
it  thinks  are  nol 

jilar  result  may  IxS 
principles  of  poacel 
uay  be  establisheAl 

AINIILTON  FISH. 


•:,  March  27,  1SG3, 
erview,  I  had  a  louj 
ftice.  lie  read  imsf 
ama  and  Oreto. 
e,  Mr.  Seward  coral 
ommitted  by  vesstf 
lost  part,  by  Britislj 
in  the  United  State 
their  cargoes.  ^ 
at  Willi 


COKRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.       127 

jwitli  the  United  States,  while  the  United  States  were  not  at  war  with 
|j.]iin|inul.    He  expresses  his  hope  that  Great  Britain,  in  execution  of 
|]iei''<>\vn  laws,  will  i)ut  an  end  to  the  fitting  out  of  such  vessels  to  prey 
Ion  the  commerce  of  a  friendly  nation.    I  said  that  the  ])hrase  that  Eng- 
land was  at  war  with  America,  but  j^  merica  was  not  at  war  with  Eng- 
land, was  rather  a  figure  of  rhetoric  than  a  true  description  of  facts, 
rfliat  the  facts  were  that  two  vsssels,  the  Oreto  and  the  Alabama,  had 
^^huled  the  operation  of  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act,  and  had,  against 
the  will  iind  purpose  of  the  British  Government,  made  war  upon  Ameri- 
can conunerce  in  the  American  seas.    That  the  fitting  out  of  the  Ala- 
bama, the  operation  against  which  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act  was 


'ortuguese  waters  at  a 


great  dis- 


Englaud  is 


specially  directed,  was  carried  on  in  V 

ance  from  any  British  ])ort.  That  the  most  stringent  orders  had  been 
;iven  long  ago  to  watch  the  proceedings  of  those  who  might  be  sus- 
lected  of  fitting  out  vessels  of  war  for  Confederate  purposes.  That  if 
here  were  six  vessels,  as  it  was  alleged,  fitting  out  in  British  ports  for 
snch  purposes,  let  evidence  be  forthcoming,  and  the  Government  would 
lot  hesitate  to  stop  the  vessels,  and  to  bring  the  olienders  before  a 
;ourt  of  Justice.  That  Mr.  Adams  was  no  doubt  aware  that  the  Govern- 
iient  must  proceed  according  to  the  regular  process  of  law  and  upon 
worn  testimony. 

Mv.  Adams,  on  the  other  hand,  dwelt  on  the  novelty  and  enormity  of 
his  species  of  warfare.  Ue  said  that  if  a  belligerent  could  fit  out  in  the 
)ort8  of  a  neutral  swift  armed  vessels  to  prey  upon  the  commei'ce  of  its 
|ji(lvt'rsary,  the  commerce  of  that  belligerent  must  be  destroyed,  and  a 
lew  and  terrible  element  of  warfare  would  be  introduced.  lie  was  sure 
hat  England  would  not  suffer  such  conduct  on  the  i)art  of  France,  nor 
■^'rance  on  the  part  of  England.  He  should  be  sorry  to  see  letters  of 
narque  issued  by  the  President;  but  there  might  be  no  better  resource 
lan  such  a  measure. 

I  said  I  would  at  once  suggest  a  better  measure.  IVIr.  Seward  had 
aid  to  Lord  Lyons  tluit  the  crews  of  privateers  had  this  advantage — 
hat  they  reaped  the  whole  benefit  of  the  prizes  they  took,  whereas  the 
rews  of  men-of-war  were  entitled  to  only  half  the  value  of  the  prizes 
hey  took.  Let  the  President,  I  said,  otter  a  higher  reward  for  the  cap- 
ure  of  the  Alabama  and  Oreto  to  the  crews  of  men-of-war  than  even 

le  entire  value  of  those  vessels.    Let  him  otter  double  their  value  as  a 

[latuity,  and  thus  confine  his  action  to  otticers  and  men  of  the  United 

|JStatt's  Navy,  over  whom  he  could  keep  a  control,  and  who  were  amen- 

ble  to  the  laws  which  govern  an  honorable  profession.     But  what  could 

;nlr.  Adams  ask  of  the  British  Government  ?    What  was  his  proposal  ? 

Mr.  Adams  said  there  was  one  thing  which  might  be  easily  done.    It 
■vas  sujiposed  the  British  Government  were  indifferent  to  these  notori- 
us  violations  of  their  own  laws.    Let  them  declare  their  condemnation 
f  all  such  infractions  of  law. 

With  respect  to  the  law  itself,  Mr.  Adams  said  either  it  was  sufficient 
or  the  purposes  of  neutrality,  and  then  let  the  British  Government 
'uforce  it,  or  it  was  insufficient,  and  then  let  the  British  Government 
pply  to  Parliament  to  amend  it. 

1  said  that  the  Cabinet  weri>,  of  opinion  that  the  low  was  sufficient, 
lit  that  legal  evidence  could  not  always  be  procured  ;  that  the  British 
xovernment  had  done  everything  in  its  power  to  execute  the  law;  but 

admitted  that  the  cases  of  the  Alabama  and  Oreto  were  a  scandal, 
nd  in  some  degree  a  reproach  to  our  laws.    Still,  I  said  it  was  my 
elief  that  if  all  tiic  assistance  given  to  the  Federals  by  British  sub- 
jects and  British  munitions  of  war  were  weighed  against  similar  aid 


-i 


I 


■^A^iit 


'iz 


i 


■<  );.-;.. 


-1-  _,S' 


■'^«^'1'' ,  ■,   ■  ■■  ■  . 


128       CORRESPONDENCE    KESPECTINO    GENEVA    ARUITRATION. 

^'Iven  to  the  Confederates,  the  bnhiiice  wonhl  lie  greatly  in  favor  of  tli(,| 
Federals. 

Mr.  A(hims  totally  denied  this  proposition.  lint  above  all,  he  said,! 
there  is  a  manifest  eonspiracy  in  this  conntry,  of  which  the  Confedenitt 
loan  is  an  additional  proof,  to  pro<lnce  a  state  of  exasperation  in  America, 
and  thns  bring  on  a  war  with  Great  Britain,  with  a  view  to  aid  the  Con ! 
federate  canse,  and  secure  a  monopoly  of  the  trade  of  the  Southern  StatcsJ 
whose  independence  these  cons])irators  hope  to  establish  by  these  illo<^al 
and  unjust  measures.  He  had  worked  to  the  best  of  his  power  for  peace,] 
bnt  it  had  become  a  most  diihcult  task. 

Mv.  Adams  fully  deserves  the  character  of  having  always  labored  fori 
peace  between  our  two  nations,  nor,  1  trust,  will  his  ett'orts  and  those  ot| 
the  two  Governments  fail  of  success. 
I  am,  &c., 

KUSSELL. 


No.  oS. 
Mr.  Fish  to  General  ISchenck. 


L,  ..  Wi,,.-,.  ■)• 


Y,  [Telfjrrani.] 

"Washington,  tJune  4, 1872. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  dift'ers  entirely  from  the  opiiil 
ion  expressed  in  Lord  Granville's  note  to  you,  that  it  is  not  necessarjl 
for  the  agents  to  present  the  arguments  of  the  respective  Goveruuieiiti| 
on  the  inth. 

The  fifth  article  of  the  Treaty  requires  that  the  arguments  be  preseutedl 
within  a  specified  time,  which  time  will  expire  on  the  15th. 

Being  a  treaty  requirement,  the  Executive  Department  of  the  Got| 
ernment  cannot  depart  from  its  obligations,  and  has  not  the  power! 
consent  to  a  change  of  its  terms. 

If  an  adjournment  is  contemplated  by  Great  Britain,  with  the  idea  oil 
future  negotiation,  it  is  right  that,  with  reference  to  the  Senate  artickf 
it  should  be  understood  that  this  Government  cannot  negotiate  on  J 
proposition  -which  involves  the  idea  that  it  may  be  guilty  of  intentionall 
ill  faith,  or  of  willful  violation  of  its  international  duties,  or  that  it  rel 
gards  such  acts  on  the  part  of  another  Power  the  subject  of  compensj| 
tiou  by  the  payment  of  damages  in  money. 


Xo.  59. 

Oencral  SchencJc  to  Mr.  Finh. 


[Tulfgiaiii.] 

London,  June  5, 1872.    (Received  at  10.45  a.  lu.) 

Oi)position  members  in  Parliament  have  strange  and  unworthy  .siispil 

cions  and  fears  that  the  last  clause  of  the  article,  although  in  the  langiiagi 

of  their  own  Government,  is  not  explicit  enough  to  prevent  the  indiroetl 


COUUESPONDENCE    RESPECTINU    GENEVA   AKBITUATION.       129 

Icliiiiiis  iVoiM  boiii^"  iifjiiiii  l)roiif>iit  tbrwiird.  ^Nlifjlit  wo  not  olfiT  that  if 
jtliis  (lovcniiiH'iit  will  a<!cei)t  tlie  Sciiiito  lansniij?^  tor  the  expression  of 
Itlic  niU',  wo  will  atfi'ee  to  the  last  clause  of  their  form,  as  (toninuiiiicjated 
■to  yon  ill  my  telejjram  of  the  .'51st  May,  adding  thereto  the  words  "  but 
Kvill  thereupon  abandon  those  several  enuiuerated  claims  as  a  cause 
|()i'  ditlerence  between  the  two  (iountries  lo  be  considere<l  by  the  Arbi- 
Itiiitors  iu  making  tiieir  award." 


Xo.  (»(). 


!'• 


t 

if 

'; 

V 


KUSSELL. 


lin,  with  the  idoaoi 


?Ir.  Fish  to  (}encml  Svlioicl: 

[Ti']oj;niiii.J 

Washington,  June  5,  1872. 

We  cannot  agree  to  tlie  suggestion  in  your  teh>gram  of  this  date 
iTliis  (Jovernnient  deals  with  the  JJritish  (lovernment,  and  not  with 
()])l)Ositiou  Members  of  Parliainent.  If  that  Government  adopts  the 
unworthy  suspicions  and  fears  referred  to  in  your  telegram,  and  advances 
tlii'in  as  reasons  for  modifying  the  proposed  article,  or  suggests  that 
I  this  Government  will  not  in  good  faith  act  ni>on  the  agreement  con- 
tained therein,  all  further  negotiation  must  cease  at  once. 

If  it  does  not  adopt  or  entertain  those  suspicious,  there  is  no  reason 
for  proposing  to  alter  the  language  which  was  proposed  by  itself,  has 
been  accepted  by  us,  and  which  is  sutticiently  explicit. 

You  may  say  that  this  Government  regards  the  new  rule  contained 
ill  the  proposed  article  as  the  consideration,  and  will  accept  it  as  a  final 
settlement  of  the  three  classes  of  the  indirect  claims  put  forth  in  our 
Case,  to  which  they  objected. 

It  is  useless  to  expect  that  any  change  can  be  made  in  the  article  as 
agreed  to  by  the  Senate.  A  treaty  in  the  words  which  the  Senate  had 
agreed  upon  could  be  ratified  by  that  body  without  debate  and  in  a  few 
minutes.  Any  change,  however  immaterial,  would  involve  discussion 
and  debate,  and  in  the  crowded  state  of  their  business  would  inevitably 
lead  to  the  defeat  of  the  Treaty. 

We  think,  also,  that  this  Government  has  made  a  large  concession 
for  the  sake  of  maintaining  the  important  principles  Involved  iu  the 
Treaty.    It  can  make  no  more. 


fe: 


Xo.  Gl. 

General  8che)ic1v  to  ]\[r.  Fish. 

[Teleyram  I'^xtiact.] 

London,  June  0,  ISTi'. — (Keceivod  5  p.  m.) 

Your  telegram  of  yesterday  received  this  morning. 

#  *  #*#  #  *  * 

Yon  will  do  me  the  justice  to  believe  I  have  had  no  exchange  of  views 
n  a  A 


m 


\f  r 


w 

TT- 

¥'':^ 

1 

'i '  '\ 

4 

'• «  ■• 

■?:'';  ■ 

';  •   *  ■  ■ 

« -i" 

I         .■    -'-Mr       '     1.    ■        ^ 


'    :    . 


I.  ■  t  ■;'':ii>"  ■»;''"•, 


130      C0RRE8P0NDENCK    RF,8I'KCTIXa    OKN'KVA    AKIUTUATION. 

with  iiii,vl>o(l,v  licrr  Imt  tlic  (lovcnmu'iil,  tlinmj;li  tlic  piopci-  cliiiniicl. 
must  iilso  (1()  Justict' to  tlu'iii ;  tlicy  liavf,  not  iidoptcil  or  syiiipatlii/n 
w  itii  till'  tears  and  suspicions  of  otln-is  in  li'f^ard  t(>  tlio  last  clause  dij 
ju'oposcd  article,  but  deicnded  it  as  snllicient.     I,  of  course,  would  li;ivi 
resented  any  intimation  I'roni  tlieni  that  my  Cloveiiiment  could  possil)lv| 
a<'t  in  bad  I'ailh. 

I  knew  your  earnest  desire  to  save  tiie  Treaty.  I  knew  that,  for  tlic 
consideration  expressed  in  the  rule  as  amended  by  the  SeiuJte,  the  (iov.] 
crnment  ol'lhe  Tnited  States  intended  to  al)aii(h)n  alto;;'etlier  the  thivi 
classes  of  indirect  claims,  and  althouj;h  1  knew  the  dilliculty  of  openin,; 
th(i  main  tpiestion  in  the  Senate,  I  thon;4ht  they  niiinht  at  om-e  af;ree  u 
show  their  friendly  and  sincere^  i»nrj)osc  by  expressin<;'  tiiat  intention, 
even  more  distinctly  than  had  been  asked  or  needed,  if  by  so  doiiijn'  tlicii 
own  expression  of  the  rule  could  be  secure«l.  liatt;  last  ni^^ht,  I  received 
from  ]^or<l  dranville,  afti'r  a  lonj;'  Cabinet  session,  three  notes  which  I 
send,  but  to  which  1  luive  not  replied.  1  will  see  him  immediately,  ami i 
commuiMcate  your  views  as  to  the  uselessness  of  expecting  chan}j;eiii| 
the  Senate  article,  and  will  probably  telej^raph  you  aj^ain  to  day. 

Tlie  tirst  note  is  as  follows : 


!: 


Kt^'^ 


\Earl  Granville  to  (leneral  l^vlienclc.l 

"SiU:  I  Udd  before  the  Cabinet  the  telejjrapliic  message  from  ^ir 
Fisli,  which  you  communicated  to  me  on  tlie  M  instant.  That  iii  . 
sage  is  only  in  answer  to  si  portion  of  the  objections  raised  by  Ihi 
Majesty's  Government  to  the  alterations  in  the  drau<>ht  article  i>ro 
posed  by  tlie  Senate,  and  does  not  notice  the  otlier  points  to  whi(!li  1 
called  your  attention  in  n>y*  letter  of  the  L'cStli  ultimo,  and  which 
were  intended  to  show  that  the  eilect  of  those  alterations  is  to  trans 
fer  the  application  of  the  adjectives  'indirect'  and  'remote'  from 
one  subject  with  reference  to  which  Ihoy  have  been  used  in  the  recent 
corresi)ondence,  viz,  claims  made  as  resi.lting  ^J'rom  the  acts  commitM 
by  certain  vessels,  to  a  ditterent  subject,  viz,  those  made  as  resulting  from 
'  the  failure  to  ohxerve  neutral  ohVujaiions.''  It  is  evident  that  a  loss  which 
is  direct  and  immediate  with  reference  to  tl;e  former  subject  may  be  in 
direct  and  remote  with  reference  to  the  latti  r,  and  this  appears  to  Ilcr 
Majesty's  Government  to  be  actually  the  case  with  respect  to  the  claims 
Avhich  it  is  assumed  the  Government  of  the  United  States  still  intend  to 
make  before  the  Arbitrators. 

"The  (lovernment  of  the  United  States  must  st^e  that  it  is  impossibk' 
for  ller  Majesty's  (Jovernment  to  authoriz(^  Her  JNIaJesty's  Minister  at 
Washington  to  sign  a  treaty,  the  words  of  which  appear  to  Her  Majestv- 
(lovernmcnt  to  say  one  thing  upon  a  mere  understanding  to  the  contraiv 
etfect." 

The  second  note  is  as  follows: 

[Earl  Granville  to  General  ^ehcncl:] 

"Sni:  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  between  the  (iovernmonl  ci 
the  United  States  and  Her  JNIaJesty's  Crovernment  as  to  the  necessity  m 
])resenting  the  written  or  printed  arguments  on  the  l."Jth  of  June.  1 
beg  to  suggest  to  you  that  the  lifth  article  is  directin-y ;  it  siieaks  oi 
something  which  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  agents  of  the  two  Govern- 
ments to  do  within  a  certain  time;  it  does  not  say  that  the  Treaty  is  to 
lapse  if  this  duty  is  neglected  or  not  performed  by  the  Agents  or 


"Siu: 
ticulty  coi 
iritli  iiisti 
meiit  und 
(iovernmc 
bitrators  t 
the  argum 
with  the  t 
of  the  tim 
llcr  I\IaJes 
with  the  f( 
tcred  by  tl 
ill  this  agr 
not  directl 
iif^Tiiph  an 
as  to  flit  III 
Milfiil  viol 
on  a  ]»roi) 
.miilty  of  i 
duties  iiiij^ 
ond  of  tlu 
I'liitcd  St 
liy  tlieSer 


iff ' 


IIUTUATION. 

piopiT  (ilianiicl.  1 
mI  or  syiiipatliiztil 
tlio  lust  cliiusc  ml 

(■DIIISC,  \V(Hll(l  llllVi 
iRMlt  COllM  l)OMsilllv| 

*        ,"        ♦ 

knew  that,  lor  the 
ic  Senate,  the  dm  | 
llo^U'etlier  the  tlini 
illieiilty  ofopeiMii:] 
lit  at  oiiee  ajiiec  t>i| 
in*;'  tiiat  intention, 
it  by  so  doiiijn'  tlicii  1 
st  ni^iit,  1  received 
hree  notes  whicli  l| 
n  immediately,  a 
:pectiny  ehanj;(^  iii| 
i|^ain  to  day. 


inossag'o  from  'Sir. 
nstant.     That  in  > 
»ns  raised  by   llci 
au;«ht  article  ])io 
points  to  whieli  I 
dtimo,   and   wliioli 
ations  is  to  trans] 
nd   'remote'  tVoin 
used  in  the  recent  j 
the  acts  committed' 
0  as  resulting  from  I 
it  that  a  loss  whicli 
subject  may  be  in 
is  apiiears  to  Her 
pe(;t  to  the  claims 
ites  still  intend  to  I 


s 


lat  itis  impossible 
esty's  Minister  at 

r  to  Her  .Majesty's 
ing  to  the  contrary 


10  (Jovernmoutot 
:o  the  necessity  of  | 

loth  of  June.  I 
ory ;  it  speaks  of 

the  two  (iovern- 
it  the  Treaty  is  to 
y  the  Agents  or 


CORUKSPONDKXCK    RESI'KCTIXG    GENKVA    ARHITKATION.       1,31 

_\M(.|ir  of  both  (lovenimeiils,  or  of  either  of  them.  It  would  hardly  be 
siQuvsted  that  the  Treaty  would  lajise  if  one  only  of  tlu^  two  Agents 
(iiiiitt<'d  to  lodge  a  written  or  i)rintei|  argument,  sucli  as  this  article  con- 
tciiipliites,  yet  there  is  no  more  reason  lor  saying  that  such  a  written  or 
]iiiiit(<l  argument  to  be  then  d«'livered  is  a  nine  qua  )uni  of  the  Treaty  if 
iMitli  Agents  omit  it  than  il'  <tiily  one  does  so.  The  articles  is  in  its  na- 
tiiic  one  of  procedure  only  for  tlu^  mutual  iiil'ormatiou  (it  may  be)  of 
tlit'iiarties,  and  entirely  for  the  assistance  of  the  Arbitrators,  but  mainly 
lor  tiie  beiietlt  and  advantage  of  the  parties  themselves,  who,  in  such 
il  iiiiitti'i',  may  or  may  not  ciioose  to  avail  themselves  of  it,  nor  would 
any  practical  inconvenience  (U'  disadvantage  arise  to  either  party  (in 
case  the  arbitration  proceed)  from  an  agreement  not  to  present  sucli  ar- 
miiiu'iits  until  a  later  date,  tiie  Arbitrators  having  full  i>o\ver  at  any 
inter  (late  to  admit  such  written  or  oral  arguments  as  they  may  think 
tit.  Her  Majesty's  (lovernment  would  make  no  dilliculty  as  to  a  suitable 
iirraiigement  for  the  ]»resentation  of  the  arguments  if  a  ('onvention  were 
siti'iied  by  Mr.  Fish  and  Sir  l]<lwar<l  Thornton  and  ratitied  by  the  Sen- 
ate, although  tliei-e  Avas  not  time  for  the  ratilications  to  be  exchanged 
ill  London  ju'cviously  to  tin;  l.")tli  of  June." 
Third  note  thus : 

\I'j<iyl  (irdiirillc  to  (irucral  Schcucl'.] 

"Sir:  1  have  to  state  to  you  that  with  the  view  of  obviating  the  dif- 
li(;alty  conne<;ted  with  the  meeting  of  the  Arbitrators  at  Cleneva  on  the 
ir»tli  instant,  and  the  ])resentation  of  the  written  or  ])rinted  argu- 
ment under  the  tifth  article  of  the  Treaty  on  that  day,  Her  ^Majesty's 
(iovernment  are  still  ready  either  to  agree  in  an  application  to  the  Ar- 
bitrators on  the  15th  to  adjourn  at  once  without  the  i)resentatiou  of 
the  argument  of  either  (iovernment,  or  to  eonchule  a  new  arrangement 
with  the  treaty-making  poAver  of  the  United  States  for  the  enlargement 
of  the  time;  or,  in.stead  of  the  amendments  to  the  Treaty  article  which 
Her  ]\[ajesty's  (Government  last  proposed,  they  are  willing  to  concliule  it 
with  the  following  additions :  First,  to  insert  after  the  i)aragraph,  as  al- 
tered by  the  Senate,  the  words,  '  the  remote  or  indirect  losses  mentioned 
in  this  agreement,  being  losses  arising  remotely  or  indirectly  from,  and 
not  directly  from,  acts  of  belligerents.'  Second,  to  insert  after  this  par- 
agraph another  paragraph:  '  further,  the  stipulations  of  this  Convention 
as  to  future  c»)nduct  have  no  reference  to  airts  of  intentional  ill  faith  or 
wilful  violation  of  international  duties.'  The  objections  to  Jiegotiating 
on  a  ]n'o])osition  which  involves  the  idea  that  either  country  may  be 
uiiilty  of  intentional  ill  I'aith  or  wilful  violation  of  its  international 
duties  iinght  be  met  by  such  a  declaration  as  that  proposed  in  the  sec- 
ond of  these  additions  being  inserted  in  the  Treaty  article,  or,  if  the 
United  States  should  im'fer  it,  by  an  interchange  of  notes,  approved 
bv  the  Senate  at  the  time  of  ratification." 


No.  (52. 

General  Sehenclc  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Ti'legram.] 

LoNDO>^,  June  (!,  1872.    (Received  7.20  p.  m.) 
Since  my  Ibrmer  telegram  to-day  I  have  seen  Lord  Granville  and 
stated  to  liim  that  it  is  useless  to  expect  that  any  change  can  be  made 


I 


I 
I 


'i  ,.ife 


ii 


Ik  4:.'-  '•  ^  >;  ', 


ItU. 


1     1 


\<*yM--;^ 


.  K    -f- 


132      CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 

in  the  article  as  agreed  to  by  the  Senate,  and  I  communicated  to  liim 
what  you  authorized  ine  to  say,  that  our  Government  would  regard  tlio 
new  rule  as  consideration  for  aiul  settlement  of  the  three  classes  of  in- 
direct claims.  I  thought  it  best  to  i>ut  that  part  of  my  communication 
in  formal  writing  and  liave  handed  him  a  note  as  follows: 

\Gcncr(d  Sehenek  to  Earl  GyanviUc.\ 

"3Iv'Lobd:  In  the  conversation  we  had  yesterday  and  which  was  I 
resumed  this  mprning,  you  stated  tome  that  Her  Majesty's  Governniont 
have  always  thought  the  language  proposed  by  them  in  the  draught  article 
as  it  stands  suftlcient  for  the  i)uri)ose  of  removing  ami  ])uttiug  an  end 
to  all  demand  on  the  part  of  tiie  United  States  in  respect  to  those  indi- 
rect claims  which  they  i>ut  forth  in  tiieir  case  at  Geneva,  and  to  the  ad- 
missibility of  which  Uer  Majesty's  Government  have  objected,  but  that 
there  were  those  Avho  doubted  whether  the  terms  used  were  explicit 
enough  to  make  that  perfectly'  clear  and  to  prevent  those  same  claims 
from  being  put  forward  again.    I  concurred  with  you  in  your  view  astn 
the  sufficiency  of  the  language  used  in  that  clause  of  the  proposed  aiti 
cle,  and  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  had  accepted,  and 
I  rei)elled  the  idea  tli'^t  anybody  should  think  it  ])ossible  that  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  Uniteu  States,  if  they  should  yield  those  claims  for  a  I 
consideration  in  a  settlement  between  the  two  countries,  would  seek  to  | 
bring  them  up  in  the  future  or  would  insist  that  they  were  vStill  before 
tlie  Arbitrators  for  their  consideration.    I  am  now  authorized,  in  .a  tele 
graphic  dispatch  received  to-day  from  3[r.  Fish,  to  say  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  regards  the  new  rule  contained  in  ti»e  pro-] 
posed  article  as  the  consideration  for  and  to  be  accepted  as  a  Itnal  set- 
tlement of  the  three  classes  of  the  indirect  claims  i)ut  forth  in  the  Case  | 
of  the  United  States,  to  whifh  the  (Jovernment  of  Great  Britain  liave 
objected." 


Hiv:-:: 


No.  G3. 

Mr.  Fish  to  (fcncral  l>^chcnvh\ 


(•5  -■  ■ 


f  [Telcj^rain. — Extract.]  | 

Washington,  Jiow  7, 1S72. 

Tour  telegrams  of  yesterday  received  last  evening.  I  have  been 
quite  ill  and  nimble  to  reply  sooner  or  fuller. 

The  rtrst  criticism  on  the  language  of  the  Senate  amendment  to  the 
proposed  article  is  regarded  as  liypercritical  ami  strained.  It  is  so  re 
garded  here  generally,  and  a  discussion  upon  it  in  the  Senate  or  in  tlie 
press  would  bo  inexpedient  aiul  would  not  tend  to  advance  a  settlenuMit, 

The  Senate  is  very  impatient  for  adjouriunent ;  and  the  Senate,  (he 
public,  and  tlu'  press  are  impatient  over  the  delays,  and  what  they  re 
gard  as  either  captions  or  dilatory  oltjections  and  prctposals  to  amend  m 
explain  Mhat  has  been  int^'uded  and  proposed  in  llu^  most  perfect  good 
faith. 

Tilt'  new  article  can  be  ratilied,  as  1  said  in  a  recent  telegram  ;  but  it 


BITRATION. 

imunicatt'd  to  lii 
t  would  regard  tlip 
throe  classes  of  in- 
iiy  eommunication 
ows : 

J  ■■''"■■ 

ly  and  which  was 
iosty's  Govoniinent 
the  draught  article 
id  ])Uttiiig  an  end 
q)ect  to  those  iiidi 
eva,  and  to  the  ad- 
;  objected,  but  that 
used  were  explicit 
those  same  claims 
in  your  view  as  to 
the  proposed  arti 
had  accepted,  and 
sible  that  the  Gov 
those  claims  for  a 
ries,  wouhl  seek  to 
y  were  still  before 
ithorizcd,  iu  a  tele 
y  that  tile  Govern- 
taiued  iu  <"i»e  pro- 
pted  as  a  liual  set- 
t  forth  iu  the  Case 
Ireat  IJritaiu  have 


>N,  June  7,  1S72. 
ng.    I  have  been 

iiiendment  to  tlie 
lied.  It  is  so  I'c 
Senate  or  in  tlie 
a  nee  a  settlement. 
I  the  .Senate,  (lie 
and  Avhat  they  re 
osals  to  amend  or 
Host  perfect  good 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.       133 

auuMidinents  be  proposed  or  explanatory  notes  requiring  the  Senate's 
approval  are  submitted,  it  will  be  impossible  to  obtifiu  ratification.  To 
insist  upon  any  such  course  is  to  defeat  the  article. 

This  (lovernment  cannot  adopt  the  argument  of  Lord  Granville  re- 
specting the  i)utting  in  of  the  arguments  of  both  Governments  on  the 
l.ltli.  We  think  tiie  Treaty  recpiires  it  to  be  done,  and  that  the  require- 
ments  can  be  dispensed  with  only  by  a  treaty. 

The  Senate  will  adjourn  on  Monday.  I  see  no  possibility  of  an 
agreement  upon  anythiag  else  than  the  article  as  agreed  to  by  the 

Senate. 

#  *  #  »  »  »  * 


Xo.  Gi. 

Gencml  Schencl-  to  Mr.  Fish. 

['rt'lt'jfniiii.] 

London,  June  7,  1S72.    (Received  7  p.  in.) 
I  liave  Just  re(5eived  the  following  from  Lord  Granville  : 

[Earl  (iranvlUe  to  Gencml  Sehencl:} 

"Sill:  In  a  telegram  which  I  have  this  morning  received  from  Sir 
Etlwaid  Thornton,  he  remarks  with  reference  to  the  lirst  of  the  two 
])assiig('s  which,  in  my  letter  to  you  of  the  ."ith  instant,  1  stated  that 
iler  ]\Iajesty's  Government  i)roposed  to  insert  in  theartice,  in  lieu  of  the 
anieiulments  last  prop(»sed  by  them,  that  I\Ir.  Fish  had  fie(inently  in 
eonversiition  with  him  objected  to  the  use  of  the  word  •belligerent,' 
and  wishes  that  indirect  claims  arising  out  of  acts  committed  by  per- 
sons other  than  recognized  belligerents,  as  well  as  belligerents,  should 
be  agreed  to  be  not  admissibk'  for  the  I'nture.  If  ]\Ir.  Fish  simuld  still 
entertain  the  same  oi)inion.  Her  .Majesty's  Government  would  )»e  (luite 
content  that  the  passage  in  (juestion  should  ran  thus  :  'The  renu)t('  or 
indirect  losses  mentioned  iu  this  agreement,  being  losses  arising  re- 
motely or  indirectly,  and  not  directly  from  acts  of  war.''' 

1  only  a<ld  tliat  I  Iiave  given  Lord  (iranviUe  no  ground  Ibi'  believing 
tliat  ,v<)u  will  assent  to  any  exi>ression  of  the  rule  exee^tt  tliat  of  the 
Senate  amendment. 


t  te 


egram ; 


bnt  It 


No.  (j'.'l. 

Mr.  Fish  to  (lo'cral  Si  hcnck. 

['rcIri.fMilll.J 

NVasminhton,  J  tine  S,  I,s7l*. 
Tlic  relciciirc   to  any  eonvers;il  ion  with  Thornt<ui  is  unjnstilicd.     i 
li;ive  in\aiiabi,v  told  him,  as  1  have  lohl  yon,  that  it  is  nseless  to  discuss 


•-.■Hi--   '      ,. 


134      CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 

anioiMluit'iits  to  the  projwscd  article.  In  my  telogrriim  of  Slst,  I  said 
the  liritish  anieiulineut  left  a  lai{?e  class  of  very  probable  cases  unpro- 
vided for.  In  conversation  with  Thornton  I  told  liini  the  same,  and  in- 
dicated  some  of  those  cases  arisinjj  from  the  use  of  the  word  "bellige. 
rent,"  but  I  indicated  no  change  that  was  desired  by  me  or  by  this  Gov- 
ernment. I  thought  the  aniendntent  proposed  objectionable,  and  tln' 
last  suggested  amendment  in  telegram  of  yesterday  does  not  remove 
the  objection,  and  I  refer  to  my  telegram  of  ath  and  repeat  emphati- 
cally  the  last  clause. 


No.  m. 


i^   :■• 


General  Schenel-  to  Mr.  Fi.sh. 

[Telegraui  ] 

London,  June  8,  187L'. 
I  received  your  telegram  of  yesterday  early  this  morning,  and  com- 
rnunicated  it  immediately  to  Lord  (Jranville.  I  supposed  any  new  pro 
posals  this  Government  might  make,  or  any  attempt  to  arrive  at  agree 
ment  alter  that,  would  be  necessarily  at  Washington  between  you  and 
Sir  Edward  Thornton,  under  such  instructions  as  he  might  receive,  I 
ihought  there  was  no  room  for  new  suggestions,  but  this  evening  Lord 
Granville  sends  me  the  followinij': 


!»'-"•:-. 


■  f, 


-''''';'-'.■ 

■  '■'  1     ,  '  '.  ■ 

■  :{r'  •:  .  - 


:i- 


■S 


[Earl  OranriUc  to  (iencral  HSchenvk.] 

"Sir:  It  appears  to  Her  INFajesty's  Govornment,  froni  a' reviewof  tlic 
correspondence  between  the  two  Governments,  that  an  agreement  on  tlio 
supplemental  article  might  i)robably  be  arrived  at  if  sutiicient  tiuie  were 
given  for  discussion  If,  therefore,  the  Treaty  is  to  be  maintained,  an 
adjournment  of  the  meeting  of  the  Arbitrators  from  the  1.5th  instant  has 
become  absolutely  necessary.  "With  this  view,  1  have  the  honor  to  i)ro- 
pose  that  on  the  nu»eting  of  the  Arbitrators  on  that  day  a  Joint  ai)i»lica 
tion  shall  be  made  for  an  adjournment  for  eight  montlis.  If  the  (Jov- 
ernment  of  the  United  States  concur  in  making  an  application  for  ad- 
journment, it  is  the  intention  of  Her  Maji'sty'sdlovernment  to  deliver  to 
the  Arbitrators  on  the  l;"Jth  instant  the  summai-y  of  tiieir  argument  undor 
the  fifth  article  of  tlie  treaty,  }iccomi»anied  by  a  declaration,  of  which  I 
have  the  honor  to  inclose  you  a  co])y  tV»r  the  information  of  your  Gov 
ernment. 

"  '  Shcich  of  firaia/hf  note  in  prescnihif/  Nuunnari/. 

"'Theund<'rsignedagentof  Jler  lUitish  Majesty  has  the  honor  to  deliver 
herewith  to  Count  Scloi)is,tS:c.,  the  piinted  argument,  showingthe  points 
and  referring  to  the  evidence  on  whicli  the  Government  of  Her  Ilritamiic 
IMaJesty  relics,  as  re<iuired  by  the  hflli  aiticleof  the  Treaty  of  Washhij;- 
ton.  The  undersigned  is  instructed  by  the  (Jovernment  which  1m' rcprc 
sents  to  state  tliat  tliis  ])rinted  argument  is  only  delixcred  to  the  Tri 
bunal  conditionally  <mi  tiie  adjcuirnment  retjuested  in  ilie  note  which  lie 
had  the  honor  to  address  to  the  Tribunal  this  day  jointly  witli  the  Agent 
of  the  Lnifed  States,  Ix'ing  carried  iiil*)  «'ll'cct  and  subject  to  tlie  notice 
whieli  tile  undersigned  has  tlie  honor  heivlty  to  give,  tliat  it  is  tlu>  inten- 
tion of  Her  Ma  jest,v\s  Government  toeancel  tlu'appointmentoi  the  lliitisli 


JBITRATION. 


COKRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING   GENEVA    ARBITRATION.       135 


ram  of  31st,  I  said 
bable  cases  ujipiu 
n  the  same,  and  in. 
the  word  "  bellige- 
me  or  by  this  Gov- 
eetionable,  and  tlio 
y  does  not  remove 
id  repeat  emphiiti- 


Arbitrator,  and  to  m  ithdraw  from  the  arbitiation  at  the  close  of  the  term 
iixed  for  the  adjournment,  uidess  the  difference  which  has  arisen  between 
the  two  Governments  as  to  t  he  chiims  for  indirect  losses,  referred  to  iu  the 
iiote  which  the  undersi{>ned  had  tha  honor  to  address  to  Count  Sdopis 
[oil  the  inth  of  April,  shall  have  been  removed."" 


No  07. 

General  Schenclc  to  Mr.  Finh. 


y,  June  8,  1872. 
monunf«',  and  coin- 
[)osed  any  new  pro- 
to  arrive  at  agree 
II  between  you  and 
'  might  receive.  I 
;  this  evening  Lord 


•om  a  review  of  the 
II  agreement  on  tlie 
ullicient  time  were 
be  maintained,  an 
le  15th  instant  has 
'.  the  honor  to  pro- 
ay  a  Joint  ajiiilica- 
ths.     If  the  Gov- 
Plilication  for  ad- 
men t  to  deliver  to 
ir  argument  under 
atioii,  of  which  I 
tioii  of  your  CJov 


mar  II. 


;l 


le  honor  to  deliver 
lowing  the  points 
nif  Her  Hritamiie 
iciity  of  Washtiifi- 
iit  which  he  repre 
xcred  to  the  Tri- 
iie  note  which  he 
ly  with  llic  Agent 
»i»'cl  t<»  I  lie  notice 
liiit  it.  is  the  iiiteii- 
icntol  the  ibitisii 


I  >'().  UaL'.j  *  Lkoation  OF  THE  United  States, 

London,  June  8,  1872.     (Keceived  June  21.) 

Sik:  I  have  the  honor  to  forward  hei^ewith  copies  of  all  the  corre- 
spoiiileiH^e  which  has  taken  iilace  between  Lord  (Jranville  and  myself 
relative  to  the  proposed  new  Treaty  article  in  regard  to  indirect  claims, 
I  .since  the  31  st  idtimo. 
J  am,  &c., 

IfOBT.  C.  HCnENCK. 
Hon.  Hamilton  Fisir, 

tScrrrtary  of  State. 


[Inclosurc  t  ill  No.  07.] 

Earl  Granville  to  General  Svhencl: 

Foreign  Office,  June  1,  1872. 

Sii{ :  In  rei»ly  to  the  communication  which  I  received  from  you  this 

I  morning,  I  beg  to  inform  you  that  Her  Majesty's  (lovernment  hold  that 

by  the  article  adopted  by  the  Senate,  ca.ses  of  bad  faith  and  wilful  mis- 

ieoiidiict  are  brought  within  the  scoi»e  of  the  pi'oposed  agreement  which 

deals  with  pecuniary  compensation. 

It  appears  to  be  the  view  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
that  such  cases  are  not  a  fit  subject  of  pecuniary  compensation,  and  I 
am  informed  by  Sir  Edward  Thornton  that  Mr.  Fish  is  of  opinion  that 
the  article  adopted  by  the  Senate  is  capable  of  improvement. 

The  J'resident  thinks  that  the  article  last  proposed  by  Her  ^Majesty's 
(iovernment  is  also  capable  of  improvement. 

The  American  (Jovernment  state  that  "  it  is  not  believed  that  there 
is  any  such  diHerence  of  object  between  the  two  Governments  in  the 
delhiition  and  limitation  which  each  desires  to  place  upon  the  liability 
(if  a  neutral,  as  to  prevent  an  agreement  on  the  language  in  which  to 
express  it,  if  time  be  allowed  for  the  exchange  of  ^iews  by  some  other 
means  than  the  telegra])li." 

The  T.iitish  Government  must  decline  to  sign  a  treaty  wliicdi  is  not  in 
eoiii'onnity  with  their  views,  and  which  does  not  express  the  i)rinci[)les 
which  the  American  Government  believes  tc  he  entertained  by  both 
parties  to  the  negotiation,  and  which,  iminediat<'ly  alter  being  signed, 
would  become  the  subject  of  negotiation  with  ii  view  to  its  alteration. 

In  this  jiosition  they  rejieat  their  readiness  to  e.\teiid  tht^tiine  allowed 
for  the  arbitration  to  meet  at  Geneva,  and  they  have,  as  you  are  aware, 
provided  Sir  10.  Thornton  with  full  jtowers  to  s>'>n  a.  treaty  for  this 
piupose;  or  they  are  willing  to  concur  in  a  joint  application  to  the  Tri- 


I 


I  !' 


■  ^§;  I 

■J  ^  "fij?i->  I 


^•1 
,     if 


-;  i^  •«  ..  >'i 


'■'■■•     '''.'■'■ 
|.-v  '■■''.■•  ;>;.  .  ■    .■' 


'•'■.•i>^.'!'., . :, ' 


136       CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 

bunal  of  Arbitration  at  once  to  adjourn  the  procecliiigs  of  the  arbitra- 
tion, Avhich  they  are  advised  it  is  within  the  competence  of  the  Arbj. 
trators  to  do  upon  such  an  application  without  a  fresh  treaty. 


I  have,  &c. 


GRANVILLE. 


'  [luclosurc  2  ill  No.  C7.] 

General  Sclienek  to  Earl  Granville.  i 

Legation  or  the  TJnitp.u  States, 

Lo^'don,  June  1,  187L'. 

My  Lord:  I  received  an  hour  ago  your  note  of  this  date,  in  whiclil 
you  reply  to  the  tcleftram  of  Mr.  Fish,  which  I  'communicated  to  .you 
this  morning,  and  inform  me  that  Her  Mii  jesty's  Government  decline  to 
sign  a  treaty  of  the  character  and  with  the  arrangement  for  the  future, 
suggested  by  Mr.  Fish,  but  repeat  their  readiness  to  extend  the  time  for 
the  Arbitrators  to  meet  at  Geneva,  for  which  purpose  Sir  Edward  Thorn 
ton  has  full  powers  to  sign  a  treaty;  or  they  are  willing,  you  state,  to 
concur  in  a  joint  application  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  to  adjourn 
their  proceedings,  which  they  are  advised  it  is  within  the  competence  | 
of  the  Arbitrators  to  do  upon  such  an  application  without  a  fresh  treaty. 

I  have  sent  the  full  text  of  your  note  to  Mr.  Fish  by  telegraph. 
I  have,  &C., 

u  IJOBT.  C.  SCIIEJsX'K. 


[Inclosnio  3  in  No.  (17.  ] 

Earl  Granrille  to  General  ^eJtenel: 

Foreign  Office,  June  3,  ISTi*. 
Sir  :  In  reply  to  tlie  question  which  you  put  to  me  this  morniiiji',  1 1 
have  to  state  to  you  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  consider  that  the 
Arbitrators  must  no  doubt  meet  on  the  l.lth  of  June,  but  the  tifth  ar 
tide  of  the  Treaty,  though  it  contein[>lates  the  delivery  of  written  arj^u 
ments  on  that  day,  does  not  make  the  further  prosecution  of  the  arlti- 
tration  impossible,  if,  on  that  day,  neither  party  presents  any  written 
argument.     The  Arbitrators  have  full  jjower  to  adjourn,  and  they  liave 
also  full  power  to  call,  after  tlie  loth,  for  any  further  statements  or  argu- 
ments, written  or  oral,  from  time  to  time,  as  tliey  may  think  fit.    It, 
therefore,  both  parties  agree  not  to  present  any  argument  till  a  later  | 
day  than   the   luth  requesting  tlu^  .Vrbitrators  to  adjourn,  and  if  the 
Arbitrators  should,  on  any  day  to  which  they  may  have  adjourned,  ne 
cei)t  the  argument  which  both  ])arties  may  then  wish  to  tender  to  tlitiii. 
this  will  be  (juite  within  their  power. 
1  have,  <S:c., 

GijAX  villi:. 


[Imlii.siii'i'  I  ill  Xo.  (17.] 
Karl  Granville  to  General  Selieiiel-. 

FoREKiN  Office,  June  o,  187l'. 

Sir:  I  laid  before  the  Cabinet  the  telegraphic  m(\ssage  from  ."\Ii'. 
Fish,  which  you  eomnmnicated  to  nie  on  the  M  instant. 

Tiiat  message  is  only  in  answer  to  a  portion  of  tlie  objections  raised 
by  Her  .Majesty's  Government  t<»  the  alterations  in  the  draught  article 


i¥^!' 


I  v,- 


BITRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   AltBITRATION.       137 


igs  of  the  arbitra- 
tence  of  the  Arl)i. 
li  treaty. 

GRANVILLE. 


Kv  States, 
on,  June  1,  1872. 
his  date,  in  whiclil 
imunicated  to  .you 
?ruineut  decline  to 
ent  for  the  future, 
ixtend  the  time  for 
Sir  Edward  Thorn 
lling:,  you  state,  to 
tratiou  to  adjourn 
ti  tlio  competence 
lOut  a  fresh  treaty,  I 
y  telegraph. 

C.  SCIIENCK. 


3E,  June  a,  1871'. 

this  morniiij>-,  1 1 

consider  that  the 

but  the  tifth  ar 

y  of  written  ar^ii 

utioii  of  the  iirhi- 

seiits  any  written 

rn,  and  they  luivi' 

atements  or  argil- 

nay  think  lit.    it, 

ment  till  a  later 

ourn,  iind  if  tlio 

ve  adj'ounu'd.  -m- 

()  tender  to  tlieiii, 


(5iJAXVlLLi:. 


:,  'Ittnc  tt,  187i'. 
essage  from  Mr, 

objections  raised 
('  (Iniuglit  article 


Loposed  by  the  Senate,  and  does  not  notice  the  other  points  to  which 
[called  your  attention  in  m.y  letter  of  the  28th  ultimo,  and  Avhich  were 
Intended"  to  show  that  the  effect  of  those  alterations  is  to  transfer  the 
Application  of  the  adjectives  "indirect"  and  "remote''  from  one  subject 
[\itli  reference  to  which  they  have  been  used  in  the  recent  corresjjond- 
tiice,  viz:  claims  made  as  resulting  from  the  '■^aciti  committed''''  by 
|ertain  vessels,  to  a  diflerent  subject,  viz:  those  made  as  resulting  from 
tthc  J'dilnre  to  observe  neutral  obligations."  It  is  evi<lent  that  a  loss 
ihieli  is  direct  and  immediate  Avith  reference  to  the  former  subject, 
tiiay  be  indirect  and  remote  with  reference  to  the  latter,  and  this  appears 
fo  iler  Majesty's  Goxernment  to  be  actually  the  case,  with  respect  to 
jlie  claims  which  it  is  assumed  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
ktill  intend  to  make  before  the  Arbitrators.  The  Govern.aeut  of  the 
Luited  States  must  see  that  it  is  impossible  for  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
hiieiit  to  authorize  Her  Majesty's  ]\[inister  at  Washington  to  sign  a 
[reaty,  the  words  of  which  aj)j)ear  to  Her  Majesty's  Government  to 
^ay  one  thing,  upon  a  mere  understanding  to  the  contrary  effect. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  Avith  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your 
lost  obedient,  humble  servant, 

GRANVILLE. 


[luflosui'o  5  in  No.  1)7.'' 

Earl  Granville  to  General  Schenck. 

rouEKiN  Offioe,  Juno  ."),  1872. 

Siii:  There  is  a  ditference  of  o]»inion  between  the  Government  of  the 
'nited  States  and  Her  Majesty's  Government  as  to  the  necessity  of  ))re- 
feenting  the  written  or  printed  arguments  on  the  loth  of  June.  I  beg 
[o  suf-gest  to  you  that,  1st,  the  lifth  article  is  directory;  it  .speaks  of 
poinething  wiiich  "  it  shall  be  the  <luty  of  the  agents  "  of  the  two  Gov- 
Wnnieiits  to  do  within  a  certain  time.  It  does  not  .say  that  the  Treaty 
Is  to  litpsr  if  this  duty  is  ne».glecteil  or  not  i)erformed  by  the  Agents  or 
IVgent  of  both  Governments,  or  of  either  of  tijem,  2d.  It  would  hardly 
|)e  ,suj;gested  that  the  Treaty  would  lapse,  W one  onh/  of  the  two  iVgents 
Diuittcd  to  lodge  a  written  or  printed  argument,  such  as  this  article  con- 
Jteniphites.  Yet  there  is  no  more  reason  for  saying  that  such  a  written 
lupiintcd  argunKnt,to  Ix'then  deli\('rc((,isa  sine  tjua  noii  of  the  Treaty, 
li'  hotli  Agents  omit  it,  than  if  one  onlj/  does  .so.  .id.  Tlie  article  is,  in 
[ts  nature,  one  of  procedure  only,  for  the  mutual  information  (it  may  be) 
:)f  tlie  ])arties,  and  entirely  for  the  assistance  of  tlu'  Arbitrators,  but 

ainly  tor  the  benelit  and  advantage  of  the  ]»artics  themselves,  who,  in 
^iiieli  i'.  matter,  may  or  may  not  choo.se  to  avail  themselves  of  it.  1th. 
\w  would  any  practical  iiu'onvenience  or  disadvantage  arise  to  either 

aity  (in  ca.se  the  arbitration  jjrocccds)  from  an  agrecnu'ot  not  to  pre- 
sent .sucli  arguments  until  a  liiter  date,  the  Arbitiators  having  lull  jiowcr 
^it  any  later  date  to  admit  such  writteu  or  oial  arguments  as  they  may 
think"  fit. 

llcr  Maji'sty's  GoNcriinicnt  would  mak(>  no   <iiriiciilty  as  to  a  suitable 

^n'ran,i:'ement  ['"the  presentation  of  the  arguments  if  a  convention  were 

sij^ned  by.Mr.  I'ish  and  Sir  iMlward  Thornton  and  ratilied  by  the  Senate, 

liiltlKtniih  there  was   not   tinu' tor  the  ratillcations  to  be  exchanged  in 

.oiidon  previously  to  tlie  l.")tli  of. June. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  witii  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most 
itliedieiit,  Innnble  servant, 

GRANVILLE. 


li 


,'\i. 


.f  ■;>■■''■■!>  j  .' 

■'.,_»'4lri-,-'4   »" 


138      CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 

V  [Inclosure  6  in  No.  07.) 

Uarl  Granrille  to  General  Schencl: 

Foreign  Office,  June  5,  1872. 

Sill:  I  have  to  state  to  you  that  with  the  view  of  obviating  the  dif 
cultj'  coiiiiected  with  the  meeting  of  the  Arbitrator.s  at  Geneva  on  tliJ 
lotli  instant,  and  the  presentation  of  the  written  or  printed  argnmeiitl 
under  the  fifth  article  of  the  Treaty  on  that  day.  Her  Majesty's  (tovpih 
ment  are  still  ready  either  to  agree  in  an  application  to  the  ArbitratoBl 
on  the  15th  to  adjourn  at  once  without  the  presentation  of  the  argumeiitl 
of  either  Government,  or  to  conclude  a  new  arrangement  with  the  treatyl 
making  power  of  the  United  States  for  the  enlargement  of  the  time;  or,[ 
instead  of  the  amendments  to  the  Treaty  article,  which  Her  !Majest,v',| 
Government  last  i)roposed,  tlrey  are  willing  to  conclude  it  with  the  i 
lowing  additions:  First,  to  insert  after  the  paragraph,  as  altered  by  tliel 
Senate,  the  words  "the  remote  or  indirect  losses  mentioned  in  this  agroel 
ment,  being  losses  arising  remotely  or  indirectly  and  not  directly  fronil 
acts  of  belligerents."  Secondly,  to  insert  after  tuis  paragraph  anotliwl 
]>ara  graph :  "Further  the  sti])ulations  of  this  Convention  as  to  future  ooul 
duct  have  no  reference  to  acts  of  intentional  ill-faith  or  wilful  violationl 
of  international  duties.'' 

The  objection  to  uegotiating  a  proi)osition  which  involves  the  ideal 
that  either  country  may  be  guilty  of  international  ill-faith  or  wilful  vioj 
lation  of  its  international  duties  might  be  met  by  sucli  declaration  iiJ 
that  i)roposed  in  the  second  of  these  additions  being  inserted  in  tliel 
Treaty  articles,  or,  if  the  United  States  should  prefer  it,  by  an  iiiteij 
change  of  notes  approved  by  the  Senate  at  the  time  of  ratification. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  vour  most  obedient,  humble  servant, 

GRANVn.LE. 

General  Sciii:>'rK,  dc,  ttr.,  dr. 


[Iiiclosiu'c  7  in  No.  r.7.] 
General  Schencl'  to  Earl  Granville. 


Legation  of  the  United  State.s, 

London,  June  (i,  1S72. 

My  Lord:  I  had  the  honor  to  receive  late  last  night  your  three  notcil 
of  yesterday's  date  containing  several  suggestions  for  a  modification  oil 
the  proposed  supi)lementary  article,  and  with  a  further  explanation  oil 
the  views  aiul  reasons  therefor  of  Jler  ]Majesty's  Government,  and  iiil 
which  you  also  present  again  suggestions  and  views  in  relation  to  (]ues[ 
tions  about  the  meeting  of  the  Arbitrators  and  the  presentation  of  ai;,ni| 
ments  on  the  loth  instant. 

AVithout  commenting  (Ui  or  replying  to  these  suggestions,  views,  ot| 
reasons  which  you  desire  to  bring  thus  again  ami  more  specifically  ti) 
the  notice  of  my  Governnu'ut,  I  have  to  inform  you  that  I  have  hastonoil 
to  ti'ausmit  the  full  text  of  each  of  tliese  communications  by  telegraiili 
to  ]\Ir.  Fish,  at  Washington. 

1  have  the  liiuior  to  be,  my  Lord,  with  the  highest  consideration,  Yoiir| 
Lordsiiiji's  most  obedient  servant, 

KOBT.  C.  S(U!K^T1C. 

The  ]{ight  Hon.  the  Harl  (JllANVlLLE. 


RBITRATION. 


COlUiKSPONDENCK    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION.       139 


[Inclosiito  r*  in  No.  (iT.] 

General  ^chcnclc  to  Eurl  (iranciUc. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

IjondoUj  June  (5,  1S72. 

Mv  LoiM) :  III  tlK*  coiivorsatioii  we  had  yostorday,  and  which  wa.s 
psumcd  this  inoniiiif;-,  you  stated  to  me  that  Her  Majesty's  Goveru- 
leiit  have  always  thoiifjht  the  hinguage  proposed  by  them  in  the  draught 
rticlo,  as  it  stands,  sutiicient  lor  tlie  purpose  of  renioviufj  and  i)utting' 
III  Olid  to  all  demand  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  in  respect  to 
liose  indirect  claims  which  they  put  forth  in  their  Case  at  (leneva,  and 

the  admissibility  of  which  Her  Majesty's (iovernment  have  objected; 
lut  that  there  were  those  who  doubted  whether  the  terms  used  were 
qilicit  enougli  to  make  that  perfectly  clear,  and  to  prevent  those  same 
laiius  from  being  put  forward  again.  I. concurred  with  you  in  your 
Jew  as  to  the  sufliciency  of  the  language  used  in  that  clause  of  the 
Iroposed  article,  and  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  had 
yrepted ;  and  1  repelled  the  idea  that  anybody  should  think  it  possible 
[lilt  the  CJovernment  of  the  United  States,  if  they  should  yield  those 
laiiiis  for  a  consideration  in  a  settlement  between  the  two  countries, 
foiild  seek  to  bring  them  up  in  the  future,  or  would  insist  that  they 
K'le  still  before  the  Arbitrators  for  their  consideration. 

I  am  now  autliorized,  in  a  telegraphic  dispatch  received  to-day  from 

Ir.  Fish,  to  say  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  regards  the 

lew  rule  contained  in  the  proposed  article  as  the  consideration  for,  and 

1)0  iU'oepted  as,  a  Hiiiil  settlement  of  the  three  classes  of  the  indirect 
iaiiiis  imt  forth  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States  to  which  the  Govern- 
poiit  of  Great  Britain  have  objected. 

have  the  hoiun-  to  be,  Avith  the  highest  consideration,  my  Lord, 
tour  L()idshii)'s  most  obedient  servant, 

EOBT.  C.  SCIIEXCK. 

Tlio  Kight  Hon.  the  Eahl  Gkanville. 


[Iiiclosuie  11  ill  No.  ()7.] 

Eail  (it'unviUe  to  (icneval  Schenci: 

FoijEKiN  Office,  June  7,  1S72. 
.Sir:  111  a  telegram,  wliich  J  have  this  morning  received  I'rom  Sir 
idwanl  Thornton,  he  remarks,  with  reference  to  the  first  of  tlie  two 
Bis.sagos  which,  in  my  letter  to  you  of  the  5th  instant,  1  stated  that  Her 
lajost.v's  Government  proposed  to  insert  in  the  article  in  lieu  of  the 
■iioiuliiients  last  proposed  by  tlieni.  that  Mv.  Fish  had  frequently,  in 
biivorsation  with  him,  objected  to  tlie  use  of  the  word  "  belligerent,'" 
kul  wishes  that  indirect  claims  arising  out  of  acts  committed  by  iier- 
piis  other  than  recognized  belligerents,  as  well  as  belligerents,  should 
k' a, mood  to  be  not  admissible  for  the  future. 

I  If  Mr.  I'M sh  should  still  entertain  the  same  opinion.  Her  ^lajesty's 
jovormuent  would  be  quite  (content  that  the  passage  in  (piestion  should 
lintliiis: 

"The  remote  or  indirect  losses  mentioned  in  this  agreement,  being 
bssos  arising  remotely  or  indirectly,  and  not  directly,  from  acts  of  war." 
I  1  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most 
podioiit,  humble  servant, 

(HLV^'VILLE. 

<!oiioial  S('in:N('ic,  dr.,  dr.,  dv. 


i 


8' 


i: '.  v! 


W' 

■  '& 

■V.     ' 

i 

.^    ■ 

;^f, 

^.  '-}. 

*S  •'> 

r:;i; 

1  '1 

*>    ''  : 

J  'l 

f  .    ■ 

'1'  ''  i 

•rH 

1  4 

i  ^-i 

J  ■  ■  -  .  ft 

Wi 

;■  :  1 

m 

!:  i'r 

fm 

liHl 


140      CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING   GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 

\  [Inclosure  10  in  No.  (»7.]  > 

General  JSchcnclc  to  Earl  Granrlllc. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  June  8,  187: 

My  Lord  :  1  retreivod  at  seven  o'clock  last  evening  your  note  of  Vbj 
terxlay  refeninj;'  to  what  Sir  E<hvar(l  Thornton  lia.s  stated  to  you  j| 
reganl  to  Mr.  Fish's  objection  to  the  word  "  belligerent,"  and  sngjjestiiij;.| 
uiodilication  of  language  to  obviate  that  objection. 

I  transmitted  the  lull  text  of  your  note  by  telejiraph  to  Mr.  F\A\ 
immediately.    At  the  same  time  1  informed  him  that  1  am  ftivin.i>'  Ydiil 
Lordship  no  s'round  for  believing  that  the  (Jovernnient  of  the  Uiiitiiil 
States  will  be  able  now  to  assent  to  any  change  of  the  rule  as  expres.scii 
by  the  Senate  amendment. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  Your  Lordsliiii'J 
most  obedient  servant, 

llOBT.  C.  SCIJEXCK. 

The  Kight  Hon.  the  Earl  Granville. 


,    v..  i. 


;'„■%::■ 


■mm 

'••1 

,  .;  ;•.'••  ;f"-h! 

■»l 

i- 

■■fm 

•i  '■■■':-■"■'■ 

'k 

tt 

i.  ;■■.■/  ,  '.' 

V  ' 

-•' ., '  *■ 


;VJ 


1  *' 

•Svjik'i 

•V'.i  ^" 

■  AMflL 

!>  •■ 

■  '^mxh 

aI: 

'-  •■ 

■  '■■  -^l 

% 

''  ' ;. 

Xo.  08. 
Mr.  Fish  to  (ieneral  ISchencl: 

[Tclc-riiiii.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  Juno  9,  187: 

Your  telegram  received  at  midnight.    The  proposal  contained  in  LoiJ 
(iranville's  note  of  yesterday  cannot  be  accepted  V)y  this  GoverniiuMitl 
In  my  dispatch  of  June  2  I  said  that  in  the  oi)inion  of  this  Govermiuiil 
the  Arbitrators  have  tin;  iK)wer  to  adjourn  either  on  their  own  ni()tiii| 
or  on  that  of  either  i)arty,  and  that  if  the  arguments  be  put  in  on  l)i 
sides  on  l.lth,  and  (ireat  Britain  moves  for  an  a<lj(»nrnment,  we  v'Hl 
assent,  but  we  cannot  be  parties  to  a  joint  application  for  adjourniiiciitl 
This  (lovernment  has  no  reason  to  ask  an  adjournment,  aiul  if  it  al)stiik| 
from  resisting  a  motion  to  adjourn,  it  will  do  so  from  courtesy  to  (ireii 
ilritain.     Nor  can  this  (lovernment  directly  or  indirectly  ^k-  i*  paitytJ 
an  agreement  or  undeistanding  whereby  (heat  Britain  is  to  subiiiit  lief 
argument  to  the  Tribunal  conditionally  or  under  any  protest  or  rescni 
tion.     The  obligations  of  the  Treaty  are  reciprocal,  and  no  liglit  !■ 
reserved  to  eitlier  (loveinment  of  any  <pialilied  action  while  the  etiii: 
is  fulfilling  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  Treaty.     Th((  United  St;itr| 
will  feel  itself  bound  to  i)rotcst  against  a  conditional  i)resentation  ot'tli 
argument  on  the  ]»art  of  (ireat  Britain,  or  any  assumed  reservation i 
right  on  liei-  i)art  to  withdraw. 

If  the  British  (lovernment  have  the  right  or  the  desire  to  witli<li';i 
fi'om  the  arbitration,  or  to  cancel  the  ai»pointment  of  their  Arbitiiit('i| 
they  must  do  so  without  asking  the  consent  of  this  (lovernnu'Ut. 

If  siu'li  notice  of  witlidri'.wal  as  is  suggested  in  JiOrd  (Iranville's  noil 
be  given,  it  will  be  the  duty  of  the  .\merican  Agent  and  Counsel  ti| 
repel  it  very  decidedly,  and  in  terms  which  self-respect  will  make  nca 
sary.  Such  notice  woidd  instantly  terminate  all  further  negotiations ni 
the  part  of  this  (lovernment.  You  will  send  to  Davis  cojjy  of  the  iinl 
posed  article,  suid  inform  him  fully  of  the  present  condition  of  the  MCL'd 


F»A 


;bitration. 


I'ED  States, 
Ion,  June  8,  1872. 
[>•  your  note  of  jf, 
fS  stated  to  you  iJ 
t,"  and  snggestiugl 

■graph  to  ]Mr.  Fisii 
t  1  am  ftivinji'  Voiil 
iieut  of  tlie  UnitiJ 
le  rule  as  expressci 

on,  Your  LordsliiiiJ 

'.  C.  SCIIEXCK. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.       141 

liiitittii  between  the  two  Governments,  and  you  will  send  a  copy  of 
lour  telegram  of  yesterday  and  of  this  reply,  and  will  keep  him  advised 
if  any  further  corresponclence  or  i)roceedings.  Send  copies  of  all  the 
leccnt  corres])ondence  nc^cessary  to  inform  him  and  the  Counsel  of  what 
has  been  done.  ' 


?  State, 

Uon,  June  0,  iSTi'. 

al  contained  in  LmJ 

)y  tliis  Govermneiitl 

of  tins  GovermiKiii 

their  own  nu)tM| 

ts  be  put  in  on  bnt 

Ijournment,  we  vi 

on  for  ad.iournui('iit,| 

?nt,  and  if  it  abstiii 

n  courtesy  to  (!rd 

rectly  W'  .^  i)art.vti| 

ain  is  to  submit  luj 

\-  i)rotest  or  lescnj 

il,  ami  no  right  i| 

ion  wliile  the  otlicl 

Th(!  United  Stakf 

l)resentation  of  tlii 

mied  reservation  li 

desire  to  witlidnrl 
of  their  Arbitnitdif 
iovcrnment. 
)rd  (lranvilU'"s  ihii| 
■nt  and  Counsel 
'ct  will  make  nm>| 
lier  negotiatidusiit 
,'is  copy  of  tlie  1*1 
i(lition\)f  the  wi4 


Xo.  (JO. 
Mr.  Fish  to  Mr.  Davis. 

[T(.'l(!{^iiun.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  Jnne  9,  1872. 

You  and  the  Counsel  should  be  in  Geneva  on  15th  regardless  of  any 
it'tiou  which  Great  liritain  may  be  supposed  to  be  likely  to  take.  If 
leenKMl  necessary,  notice  must  be  given  to  Arbitrators  that  you  will  be 
liere  to  deliver  argument  and  to  proceed  according  to  the  Treaty.  I 
liive  telegraphed  Schenck  to  send  you  full  infoi  nation  of  i)resont  state 
If  negotiations,  with  copies  of  recent  correspondence,  and  especially  of  a 
loto  of  Granville  and  of  my  reply  of  this  date.  Should  any  notice  such 
Is  is  indicated  in  Granville's  note  be  given,  a  decided  protest  must  be 
liitered  against  nuy  qualified  or  conditional  appearance  before  the  Tri- 
bunal. The  course  and  the  notice  suggested  by  Granville  will  be  not 
Inly  a  failure  to  observe  her  treaty  obligations  with  this  Government 
In  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  but  will  also  be  an  indignity  to  the  friendly 
[owers  who  have  appointed  Arbitrators  to  attend  a  Tribunal  before 
rliich  two  parties  are  to  appear  in  good  faith.  Use  calm  and  measured 
jingnage,  avoiding  menace  or  irritation  in  whatever  is  said.    You  will 

)niuuuiicato  this  and  other  telegrams,  and  all  information  received 
[cm  Schenck  to  Counsel,  who  will  consider  them  addressed  to  them, 
)rI  will  please  regulate  their  course  accordingly.    In  the  very  great 

icertainty  as  to  the  course  which  England  intends  to  observe,  it  is 
tfticult,  if  not  impossible,  to  give  instructions  to  meet  the  contingencies 
[hicb  may  arise.  If  Great  Britain  put  in  her  argument  on  15th  with- 
lit  any  offensive  notice,  and  then  moves  for  an  adjournment,  yon  and 
jounsel  on  our  side  will  say  that  the  United  States  do  not  object  to  the 
|1  jour  anient. 


No.  70. 
General  Schcnclc  to  ]\ir.  Fish. 

[Telcgriiin.] 

Lo^fDON,  June  11, 1872.     (Beceived  at  11.50  a.  m.) 
[lU'ceived  yesterday  morning  your  telegram  of  9th,  and  communi- 
ktcd  to  Lord  Granville  immediately  all  except  the  instructions  at  the 
loso.    Late  last  night,  after  a  long  Cabinet,  he  sent  me  the  following 
3to: 

[Earl  Oranville  to  (Seneral  Schenck. \ 

"  Sir  :  Iler  ^Majesty's  Government  understand  that  the  Government  of 
|c  United  States  decline  any  agreement  between  the  twoCovernments, 
aloss  the  Govern nuHit  of  Her  IMaJesty  consent  to  ^sign  the  supplemental 
hide  as  altered  by  the  Senate,  to  which  Her  Majesty's  Government 


r 


i 


si.  ■>••*•;  !^  ■ 


I  <! 


I  -J'^  ■. 


.^t 


»; 


;  *.  i « -'  •  "^  ■  ^  * 


"W. 


'..I- ::'■;»-  .■ 


'■^ri'^";- 


B.   ;^t• .^-■.       '■      .'•,'5:  »- 


142      CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARnlTRATION. 

have  stilted  their  objections,  or  unless  without  iiiiy  deehuiition  usti 
our  (h)infi'  so  .siih  modo  they  ii;>ree  to  tiike  a  further  step  in  the  procchjl 
injis before  tlu'  Arbitrators,  whih'  a  uiisniMk'rstaiidiii};  exists  as  to  \vl 
both  parties  agreed  to  stdnuit  to  arbitration.      .Mr.  Fish  states  to  \i| 
that  *'ie  tJovernnient  of  tlie  United  States  have  nt)  reason  to  ask  for; 
adJournnuMit  of  the  arbitration  at  (leneva.     Tiie  reason  whieli  a<!tn;it(j 
ITer  ^Majesty's  (lovernnient  in  proposin<>' it  was  to  obtain  time  foitlij 
eonehision  of  an  aj^reenient  at  wiiieii  botli  i)arties  had  ahea<ly  iicnili 
arrived.     ]Ier  Majesty's  (iovernnu'ut  will  liave  now  to  consider  wlnj 
may  be  the  eouise  most  consistent  with  the  declarations  they  have  iicij 
tofore  made  most  respec-tfid   to  tlu'  Tribnmd  of  Aibitration  and 
most  courteous  to  the  ruitel  States.      The  lUitish  Arbitrator  will  inij 
ceed  to  Cleneva,  and  at  the  nu'ctinj;'  of  the  Tribunal  the  Ibitish  Ajiciij 
will  be  directed  to  i)resent  to  them  a  statement  to  the  following'  elltTtI 
"  Her  3IaJ(.'sty's  (.loverninent  regret  to  be  under  the  necessity  of  inforrJ 
iu<;'  the  Arbitratois  that  the  dilference  between  Jler  .Majesty's  (JovcriJ 
ment,  and  the  (lov«'rnment  of  the  United  States  referre*!  to  in  the  iiuij 
which  accomi)anied  the  presentation  of  the  British  Counter  Case  (I 
the  l.")th   of  April  last,    has  not  yet  been  removed.      Iler  ^Nraicstjl 
(U)vernment  have,  however,  been    en<«a}>ed  in  negotiations  with  tlij 
Ciovernnient  of  the  United  States,  which  have  continued  down  to  tlil 
l)resent  time,  for  the  solution  of  the  ditliculty  which  has  thus  aviscif 
and  they  do  not  abandon  the  hope  tiiat,  if  further  time  were  given  tJ 
that  purpose,  such  a  solution  might  be  tbund  practicable.     Under  tlici 
circumstances,  the  course  which  Jler  Majesty's  (Joverunieut  would i 
speetfully  re(pu\st  the  Tribunal  to  take  is  to  adjourn  the  present  nieetiiij 
for  such  a  i)eriod  as  may  emd)le  a  supplementary  convention  to  be  .stij 
concluded  and  ratitied  between  the  high  contracting  parties.    In  i 
meau  time  the  high  contracting  [)arties  not  being  in  accord  as  to  th 
subject-matter  of  the  reference  to  arbitration.  Her  JVraJesty's  Govid 
nient  regret  to  find  theuiselves  unable  to  deliver  the  written  argiuneDi 
w  hieh  their  Agent  is  direcjted  to  put  in  under  the  fifth  article  of 
Treaty,  (although  that  argument  has  been  duly  prepared  and  is  intlj 
hands  of  their  Agent,)  or  to  take  any  other  steps  at  the  present  tiniti 
the  intende<l  arbitration.     It  will  of  course  be  understood  by  theTri 
nal  that  Her  3IaJesty's  CJovernment  (while  they  would  consider  tlielij 
bunal  to  have  full  j)ower  to  i)roeeed  at  the  end  of  the  period  of  adjouri 
ment  if  the  difference  between  the  high  contracting  parties  shouUl  m 
have  been  removed,  uotwithstanding  the  non-delivery  on  this  ilayt| 
the  argument  l)y  the  Ibitish  Agent)  continue,  while  retiuesting  tliisi 
journment,  to  reserve  all  Jler  ^Majesty's  rights  in  the  event  of  an  nj;if 
ment  not  being  tinally  arrived  at  in  the  same  manner  as  was  expre- 
in  the  note  which  accompanied  the  Jbitish  Counter  Case.*' 


■!'.^-.::: 


;i^l ..';.,. 


No.  71. 


General  Schcnrlc  io  ^fr.  Fish. 
[T('l(\!;i:mi.] 

London,  June  11,  1872.  (lieceived  at  o.40  p.m.  j 
Have  acknowledged  J^ord  (Jranville's  note  telegraphed  yonthi.  nionj 
ing,  saying  I  liave  transmitted  it  to  my  Government,  at  Wasliinjjtoij 
where  I  have  no  doubt  it  will  be  received  and  considered  in  the  sai 
friendly  si)irit  in  which  it  is  intended,  and  as  a  sincere  effort  yet  toprj 
serve  the  Treaty  between  the  two  countries. 


IIUTRATION. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.       14;') 

No.  7li. 

OeneraJ  aSVA<';«7,-  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[TeU'Kiiiin.]  ! 

"  London,  Jitnr  1l',  1872 — :\A~t  p.  in. 

(Ivccoivod  at  WA't  j).  in.) 
Have  tliis  uioniont  received  another  loiij;' (^onununieation*  (Voni  Lord 
llranville.     It  is  in  a  very  Criendly  spirit.     He  recai>itnlates  the  histo'y 
If  the  ne.u'otiation  Ibr  a  snp[)lenientary  arti(;k\  and  then  proceeds  as 
follows:    •       , 

[Earl  (Iranvillc  to  ileiK  ral  Schcncl\\ 

'•J[er  Majesty's  Government  believe,  therefore,  that  they  have  met 
Lll  the  objections,  so  I'ar  as  they  have  been  informed  of  tiiem,  wjiich 
Live  been  from  time  to  time  advanced  to  the  snyji^estions  which  they 
have  made,  ami  that  tliis  recapitulation  of  the  nej^otiation  shows  that, 
liilcss  Jler  Majesty's  Government  linve  erird  in  their  view  of  the 
Lobable  intention  of  the  Senate,  the  two  Governments  are  substantially 
(greed,  or  that,  if  there  is  any  difference  between  them  in  principle,  it 

rcduceil  to  tlie  smallest  proportions. 

"On  the  other liaud,  the  objections  which  Her  jMaJesty's Government 
liitortain,  and  have  expressed,  to  tlie  lanjiuage  of  the  amendments  made 
Iv  the  Senate,  are  founded  upon  reasons  to  which  they  attach  the 
Ireatest  importance,  thou}j;h  they  thiidc  it  possible  Ihat  the  Senate  did 
lot  intend  to  use  that  language  iu  the  sense  wdiich,  according  to  the 
[lew  of  Her  iVIaJesty's  Government,  the  words  properly  bear. 

"  The  Government  of  the  United  States  have  stated  in  the  telegraphic 
jie.ssage  from  Mr.  Fish,  to  which  I  have  already-  referred,  that  there  are 
Bine  (;ases  not  provided  for  in  the  words  suggested  by  Her  Majesty's 
Government  on  the  oOtli  of  IVlay.  If  the  Government  of  the  ITnited 
(tates  are  of  opinion  that  these  cases  are  not  covered  by  the  hist  ])ro- 

3se(l  form  of  article,  and  will  state  what  are  the  cases  in  question, 
|er  Majesty's  Government  cannot  but  think  that  the  two  Governments 
light  probably  agree  upon  a  form  of  wortls  which  would  meet  them 
(itliout  being  open  to  the  objections  which  they  have  felt  to  the  wording 
\  the  article  as  proposed  by  the  Senate.    Her  Majesty's  Government 

ivo  never  put  forward  their  words  as  an  ultimatun),  and  they  will  be 
[illiiig  to  consider  at  the  proper  time  other  words,  if  an  adjournment  is 
CToed  upon." 

\l  shall  make  no  reply  at  present  to  this  communication,  not  having 
Join  you  any  answer  to  or  comment  on  Granville's  note  of  lOth,  tele- 
Vaplied  yesterday  morning.  lEavc  sent  J)avis  copies  of  all  notes  and 
Ik'grams.    Jle  goes  to  Geneva  to-morrow. 


Xo.  7:5. 
O'cncrdI  Scltenci:  to  ^[r.  F!.slt. 


|o.  2.")1.]  LE(iAT10N  OF  THE  UNITED   StATEH, 

London,  June  1.'},  1872.     (Keceived  June  2r».) 

Su!:  With  this  1  transmit  copies  of  all  correspondence  with  the 
oreigii  OUice. 


For  the  full  text  of  tliis  note  see  iuelosiue  (i  iu  No.  73. 


in 
.1 


I 


Vf' J.  ■.' 


h"*'" 


144      COURESPONDENCK    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION. 

J  send  also  loports  of  procccMlins's  in  botli  llousos  of  Piirliiiiiu'iif,  ai 
articles  from  tlic-  leading  Journals  siiico  that  date,  wlii(!h  will  serve  in 
inform  yon  better  than  anythinfj;  else  eonhl  do  of  the  excitement  iii 
anxiety  here  occasioned  by  the  imminent  prospect  of  the  failnre  ol'  tliJ 
arbitration  at  (leneva. 

U|)  to  this  time  1  am  witliont  any  reply  from  you  to  my  two  tele^raiiiil 
of  the  lltli,  and  one  of  yesterday,  (12th,)  and  1  am,  thercibre,  nnal)l('ti| 
inform  Lord  CJraiiville  whether  yon  are  willinj;'  to  yive  an>  consideratioj 
to  hiH  last  two  commuincations.  You  have  ]»rol>ably,  however,  ti'lfl 
yraphed  your  furtlu^r  views  ami  instructions  direct  to  ^fr.  Davis,  llJ 
yoes  from  I'aris  to  (Jeiu'va  to-day,  aiul  has  been  furnished  with  (lopiij 
of  all  notes  ami  tt^le^rams  relatiu'-'  to  recent  negotiations  and  the  jioiiit. 
that  have  been  in  controversy. 

1  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

KOr.T.  C.  SCIIEXCK, 

Hon.  ITamilton  Fisir, 

HwrcUnij  of  State,  ]Vo,shb)(iton,  I).  C.  -^ 


.1' ' .  ■ ; 


[Iiiclosuro  1  in  No.  73.] 

Eorl  (lyanriUc  to  General  SchencJx, 


r  .i''-  '■■■■  ■^  .  ■    , 


^'  Foreign  Office,  June  8, 1872. 1 

Sir:  It  api)ears  to  Her  ]Majesty\s  (loverunient  from  a  review  of  tli| 
correspondence  between  the  two  Governments  that  an  agreement  on  1 
supplemental  article  might  probably  be  arrived  at,  if  sullicient  ti 
were  given  for  discussion.    If,  therefore,  the  Treaty  is  to  be  maintainoJ 
an  adjournment  of  the  meeting  of  the  Arbitrators  from  the  15th  iiist;iii| 
has  become  absolutely  necessary.     With  this  view  I  have  the  hoiioii 
in'opose  that  on  the  meeting  oi  the  Arbitrators  on  that  day,  a  joint  appl 
cation  shall  be  made  for  an  adjournment  for  eight  mouths. 

If  the  trovernment  of  the  United  States  concur  in  making  an  applkJ 
tiou  for  adjournment,  it  is  the  intention  of  Ilev  Majesty's  Governiiieif 
to  deliver  to  the  Arbitrators  on  the  loth  instant  the  suu)mary  of  tliei 
argument  under  the  fifth  article  of  the  Treaty,  accompanied  by  a  decliirl 
tion  of  which  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  you  a  copy  for  the  inforiiiatii| 
of  your  Government. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  iiw-j 
obedient,  humble  servant, 

GRAN  villi: 

General  Sciienck,  ttc,  dr.,  dr. 


,•■.-1  -' 


'1^! 


^f 


'       l^^*"! 


[Iiiclosnre  2  in  No.  7:!  ] 

iSJceteh  of  drangJit-note  in  prcHcntim/  suinmanj. 

^Tho  undersigned  Agent  of  Her  liritannic  Majesty  has  the  honnri 
deliver  herewith  to  Count  Sclopis,  &c.,  the  printed  argument,  sliowii 
the  points  and  referring  to  the  evidence  on  which  the  Governnientj 
Her  Britannic  Majesty  relies,  as  required  by  the  fifth  article  of  the  TieiiJ 
of  Washington.  I 

The  undersigned  is  instructed  by  the  Government  which  he  reprcscni 


i-. 


niTRATION. 


COKRr.SPOXDKNCK    KKSPKCTINfJ    OKN'KVA    ARUI  llfATIOX. 


145 


in  sl.i!<'  tliiit  lliis  i»iiiitt'(l  iir/^iimciit  is  only  dcliv ciimI  to  the  'rril)miiil 
[oiiditioiiiilly  on  tlic  iuljoiiniiiiciit  rctiucstrd  in  tli(^  not<>  wliicli  lie  liad 
till'  honor  to  addit'ss  to  tlic  Tiihiiniil  tliis  diiy,  jointly  with  tlic  !i.i;<'nt  of 
hie  riiitcd  Stntt's.  \n'u\<r  rallied  into  ctli'ct,  and  siiUJcct  to  llio  notice, 
kvliicli  tin'  nndeisijiiied  lias  the  honor  hereby  to  jiive.  that  it  is  the  iidcn- 
\i()iM)f  Her  Majesty's  ( Joverinnent  to  cancel  th»'  a|tiiointnient  of  the 
lliilisli  Ailiilrator,  and  to  withdraw  iVoni  the  arhitration  at  the  close  of 
lio  term  fixed  tor  tlie  adjonrnnient,  nidess  the  dilVe'.cnce  which  has 
arisen  between  the  two  (ioverninents  as  to  the  claims  for  indirect  losses 
Lt'cricd  to  in  tlu^  note  Which  the  undcrsi'^iied  had  tlu'  honor  to  address 
[oCninit  Sclopis  on  tin'  loth  of  Apiil  shall  have  been  removed. 


[  Iiii'lti.-inc  '.i  ill  No.  7I>.  1 
(hncnil  iSchenrh'  to  /vVn7  (h'<(iirill<: 

Li'.iiATioN  OF  Tin:  rMi'i;i)  Sta'iks, 

Mvl-oui):  1  have  received  this  evening''  (T.-U)  p.  ni.)  your  note  of 
|to  (lity's  date,  coinninnicatino-  for  the  iirtbrmation  of  my  Clovernnient  a 
fojjyofa  sketch  of  dranfi'ht  note  to  be  nsed  in  presentinjitothe  Arbitrators 
i.suimaaryof  theirarj;nnienton  their»lh  instant, snch. (Iran j^ht-notebeinf; 
l)iis(Ml  on  a  i)roposed  application  for  an  adjonrnnient  of  the  arbitration 
for  cijilit  months. 

r, shall  imniediatelv  transmit  vosir  note  !ind  the  inclosnre  bv  teloyraph 
lo3h.  Fish. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  wit!i  the  hi.'^hest  (  onsi(h'ra1  ion,  \o\\v  Lordship's 
hio.st  obedient  servant, 

Kor.T.  C.  ^cIM'^'-K. 

I'ij;lit  I  [on.  lOavl  (lltANVII.l.K,  <ir.,  ilr.,  itv. 


[liu'idsi'.rc  1  ill  N(i 


•J 


which  he  reprcscBl 


Karl  (InmrViU'  i<>  (Iiik  xtl  lSr]i/ii<-l,\ 

FOUEKiN  OFl'lCi:,  'JiiiW  10,  ISTl'. 

I  Sii;:  Her  IMajesly's  ("tovi'ninient  nnih'rstand  that  tln^  (Joverniuenl 
bftlit' Tiiited  States  dccliiu^  any  a^^reeinent  between  {\n\  two  (lovern- 
bii'iits.  unless  the  (lovernmont  of  Her  lAfaJesty  consent  to  si<>n  the  sii)»- 
ilcMiciital  article  as  altered  by  the  Senate,  to  which  Her  ^Majesty's  (Jov- 
liiiiiH'iit  have  stated  their  olijections,  or  nnless  they  a.uree,  withont  any 
Iccliiration  as  to  their  doinji'  so  suh  niodo,  to  take  a  fnrther  step  in  the 
Imcccdinjis  l>efor<'  the  Arl)itrators,  while  a  niisiin(lerstandin<.>'  exists  as 
lo  wluit  both  partit'S  a,t;reed  to  submit  to  arbitration. 
I  31r.  Fish  states  to  you  that  the  (Jovernnient  of  the  |Tnit(>d  States 
liivo  no  j'cason  to  ask  for  an  adjournment  of  tii(>  arbiti'ation  at  (Jenova. 
j  The  reason  which  actuated  Her  ^lajesty's  (lovernment  in  proposing' 
r,  >viis  to  obtain  time  for  the  conclusion  ol'  an  agreement  at  which  both 
biutiesliad  already  nearly  airived. 

[  Her  ^Majesty's  (jrovernment  will   have  now  to  consider  what  maybe 
Dip  course  most  consistent  with  the  declarations  they  have,  heretolore 
liiulo,  iiio.st  respectful  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration,  and   the  most 
|oiuteous  to  the  United  States. 
10  G  A 


[.'••I  ■. 


i.y 


f 


•<  IV, 


146       CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 

The  lliitisii  Arbitrator  will  r('])air  to  (lonevsi,  and  at  the  inectinfj  ofl 
tlie  Trilmiial  the  British  a^^oiit  will  be  directed  to  present  theui  a  state { 
nient  to  the  followinfj-  etlect: 

"  Her  ^Majesty's  Government  regret  to  be  under  the  necessity  of  inform.] 
in<?  the  Arbitrators  that  the  ditlerence  between  lier  Majesty's  (JoveiiiJ 
nient  and  the  (Joverninent  of  the  United  States,  referred  to  in  the  mm 
which  accompanied  the  i>resentation  of  the  IJritish  counter  case  on  tliel 
loth  of  Ai>ril  last,  has  not  yet  been  removed.  Her  JNIajesty's  Govern 
ment  have,  however,  been  enffajned  in  nes'()tiations  witli  the  Govern 
ment  of  tiie  United  States,  which  have  continii(?d  down  to  tlie  i)rosent| 
time,  for  the  solution  of  the  dilliculty  whi(;h  has  thus  arisen  ;  and  tlitnl 
do  Jiot  abandon  the  hope  that,  if  further  time  were  <;iven  for  that  pin  r 
pose,  such  a  solution  niijiiit  be  foun<l  practicable. 

"Under  these  circumstances,  the  course  which  Her  ]\IaJesty's  Goveii 
nient  would  respectfully  recjuest  the  Tribunal  to  take  is,  to  adjourn  tiifl 
present  meeting  for  such  a  period  as  may  enable  a  supplementary  conf 
vention  to  be  still  concluded  and  ratitted  between  the  hij»h  contractiii;; 
parties.  , 

"In  the  mean  time,  the  hij^h  contracting  parties  not  bein}>-  in  accordibl 
to  the  subject-matter  of  the  reference  to  arbitration,  Iler  ]\Ia.jest,v'J 
Government  regret  to  tind  themselves  unable  to  deliver  the  written  ai  I 
gnment  which  their  agent  is  directed  to  put  in  under  the  Vth  article  oil 
the  Treaty,  (a'tiiough  that  aigument  has  been  <luly  prepared,  and  isitl 
the  hanils  of  their  agent,)  or  to  take  any  other  step  at  the  present  tinul 
in  the  intended  arbitration.  I 

"  It  will,  of  course,  be  understood  by  the  Tribunal  that  Iler  ]\Ia jest/J 
(jOvernment(whil(!they  would  <*onsider  the  Tribunal  tohave  fidl  powt^rtol 
proceed  at  tlie  end  of  the  i)eriod  of  adjcnunment,  if  the  ditlerence  lioT 
tween  the  high  contracting  i»arties  should  then  liave  been  removcill 
notwithstanding  the  nondelivery  on  this  day  of  the  argument  by  tlJ 
IJritish  agent)  continue,  while  re(pu\sting  this  adjournment,  to  reservfj 
all  Her  Majesty's  rights  in  the  event  of  an  agreement  not  being  fninl 
arrived  at,  in  the  same  maniuM"  as  was  expressed  in  the  note  which  ail 
C()inpanie(l  the  British  Counter  Case." 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  higli  considei'ation,  sir,  your  most  olir 
dieiit,  humble  servant, 

GKAXVlLLi:, 


[Iiulosui'i,'  .')  ill  Xo.  *:!.] 

(iencrnl  f<clicncJ:  to  Eurl  (Iranrillc, 


Legation  of  the  lTniteu  States, 

London, 'huir  11,  ii:'>~2, 

3Iy  Lori):  I  had  tl  e  honor  to  receive  late  last  night  your  note  olyc? 
terday,  refening  to  the  present  state  of  the  negotiations  between  tliti 
(Jovernment  of  the  United  States  and  lier  [Majesty's  Government  in  rt'l;i 
lion  to  tiie  proposed  su|!pleinentary  aitide,  or  to  an  adjournment  oi'tlifi 
arbitration   at  Geneva;  an<l  informing  I'.u  that  Her  .Alajesty's  (iovtiii 
ment  will  now  have  t<»  consider  what  may  be  the  course  most  eonsistciiii 
with  the  declarations  they  havi^  heret(>for(>  niiule,  most  respectlul  to  llnl 
Tribunal  of  Aibitiation,  and  the  most  courteous  to  the  United  Stiifi'"! 
Your  Jiordship  then   proceeds  to  state  that  the  British  Arbitrator  will 
repair  to  Gene\a,  where  tlu'  British  Agent,  at  the  meeting  of  tiu'Triliiij 
nal,  will  be  directed  to  jiresciit   tlieni  a  stateaient  to  the  elleet  that 


JBITRATION. 

at  the  mectiri};-  (J 
I'seiit  tliLMn  a  .statcj 

iiecossity  of  inform. 
Mnjesty's  (loveniJ 
'vroii  to  in  the  iKitej 
•omiter  case  on  tljel 
L'  Majesty's  Cio\eni[ 
<  with  tlic  (lovei'iil 
wii  to  the  prcseiitl 
s  jirison  ;  and  tlicvl 
<;iven  for  that  pin  | 

r  ]\IiiJesty's  Oovm 
e  is,  to  ad.joiiiu  tlicl 
supplementary  coiif 
lie  high  coutractiiij 


CORRESPONDENCR    RESPKCTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.       147 

Iditference  between  the  two  Govenunents  referred  to  in  the  note  Avliich 
jacconipani".!  the  i)resentati()n  of  the  Britisli  Counter  Case,  not  havinj*- 
|l)e('ii  removed,  altliouj^h  neju'otintions  to  tliat  end  have  been  engaged  in 
jaiul  continued  down  to  the  present  time,  Her  ^Majesty's  (lovernment  do 
Lot  abiindon  the  liope  that  if  furtiier  time  were  given  for  that  ])urpose 
Isnch  a  soUition  might  be  found  ])riU'ticable.  And  that,  under  thes(^ 
|ciicniiistan(;es,  the  course  whicli  Her  ^Majesty's  (lovernment  would 
[respectfully  request  the  Tribunal  to  take  is,  to  adjourn  for  such  a  ])eriod 
'as  iiiiiy  enable  a  supplementary  convention  to  ho  still  concluded  and 

•alitit'd  between  the  high  contracting  parties.  And  you  further  intV)rm 
|]iie  that,  in  the  mean  time,  the  high  contracting  parties  not  being  in 

I'conl  as  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  reference  to  arbitration.   Her 

Majesty's  Government  regret  to  tind  themselves  unable  to  deliver  their 
kvritteii  argument  under  tli<i  A'th  article  of  the  Treaty,  although  that 
tu'iiument  is  duly  i>repared  and  in  the  hands  of  their  Agent,  or  to  take 
liiiiy  other  step  at  the  present  time  in  the  intended  arbitration.     And 

^oii  add  that  it  will  of  couise  be  understood  by  the  Tribuind  that  while 


Her  .Majesty's  Government  would  consider  the  Tribunal  to  have  full 
3t  being  in  accord ii>^R»o\vcr  to  i)roceed  at  the  end  of  the  period  of  adjournment,  if  the  dilfer- 
ion.  Her  ]MaJest,v'sHeiU'e  between  the   liigh   contracting   ])arties   sliould   then    have   been 


liver  tiu^,  written  ar 
r  the  Vth  articled! 
prei)ared,  and  is  itl 
at  the  present  tiiiiil 

1  that  ller:MaJestv'' 
to  have  fidl  power  tJ 
if  the  ditference  he  I 
ave  been  I'emovcill 
e  argunuMit  by  tliJ 
urnment,  to  resei'vt| 
it  not  being  tinal 
the  note  wiiicli  .uj 

sir,  your  most  obtJ 

Gil  AX  villi:. 


removed,  norwitlistanding  the  non  delivery  on  that  day  of  the  argument 
S»y  the  British  Agent,  they  will  continue,  while  re<piesting  this  adjourn- 
jiieiit,  to  reserve  all  Her  iSlaJesty's  rights  in  the  event  of  an  agreement 
'iiig  linally  arrived  at.  in  the  sanu'  manner  as  was  expressed  in  the  note 
l^vliieli  accompanied  the  Uritish  Counter  Case. 
This  note,  my  Lord,  in  its  fidl  text,  I  transmitted  this  moiiiing  to  my 
loverntiient  at  Washington,  where  I  have  no  dt)ubt  it  will  be  received 
mid  considered  in  the  friendly  spirit  in  whi<'li  it  is  intended,  and  as  a 
fiiiicere  eflbrt  yet  to  iirescrve  the  Treaty  between  the  two  countries;  and 
will  not  fail  to  communicate  to  you  at  the  earliest  moment  the  answer 
^liich  may  come  from  Mr.  Fish. 
1  iiave  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  my  Lind,  your 
A>i(lsliip's  most  obedient  servant, 

ROUT.  C.  SCHlvXCK. 

The  flight  Hon.  the  F.Ain.  GitANVlM.i:. 


Tisu  States, 
i))i,  June  11,  1872, 
:ht  your  note  of  ye* 
ations  between  tini 
Government  in  n'l.i| 
adJournnuMit  of  tin 
r  Majesty's  (ioveiii 
rse  nu)st  consistcii 
)st  respeetl'id  to  lli 

the  I'niled  StattJ 
tish  Arbitrator  wi: 
cetinii'of  theTiiliiil 

the  ellect  that  tlifl 


(  IiicloMirc  (i  ill  Nd.  7o.  ] 

J'J<(ti  (iranrillc  to  (Iciiniil  IScliciicI-. 

Von\)l<\y  ()l'VU'l],'Jiinr  11,  ISTL'. 

i>ni:  It  may  be  useful  that  1  sliould  briefly  recapitulate  the  negotiations 
ftliich  have  passed  with  respect  to  the  supplementary  Treaty  article  in 
Jtidertliat  theic  may  be  a  dislinct  and  connected  record  oi   liiem. 

On  tlic  Kith  of  May  Her  Majesty's  Government,  although  they  con- 
fiidercd  that  the  ])roi»osal  of  the  form  of  article  would  come  nnue  con- 
veniently from  the  Cnited  States  Government,  propctscd  the  draught 
iiitiele  as  origimdiy  forwarded  toyou  on  that  day. 

This  diaught  aiticle  was  substantially  the  same  as  the  draught  note. 
luMiiteichange" of  which  had  Ibi'ined  the  subjt-ct  of  ])revioiis  corre- 
lioiwleiice. 

On  the  L'Oth  of  May  liei-  Majesty's  Goveriinu'iit  learned  that  the  Sen 
ate  had  recommended  the    l*resi<lcnt  to  negotiate  a  convention  «tn  the 
Stasis  of  this  draiight   article,  with  the  substitution  oi'  two  other  para- 


it-,   'if'T' 


.  1,  ...'■-' 1"''*  ' 

N-    I'll;;" 


If. )  .'^■'■^    :  . 
,•  •  ■,*'.'■'''.'■■ 


.-m: 


[■■Vsi-      '    .' 


W^'%r 


ri't:.  ■■' 


„,  ''^,■  Vr-^::<ir,^: 

-  ''•:.•:*■'■■■   ■  '     ' 


1 


14s      CORUESPOKDENCE    RESrECTING    GENEVA    AUHITKATION. 

;>iiiplis  for  tlu' luiiitli  inid   iif'tlt  itaiajiraplis  of  the  ICiifi'lish  «lriiii}j;lir, 
follows:  "  WiiereMs  tlie  llovcrnineut  of  llcr  Jiritaimic  .Majesty  has  con  [ 
tended  in  tlie  recent  eorresjiondence  witli  tlie(iovern«ientot  the  IJiiitedl 
States  as  fono\vs,na(nely:  Th.it  such  indirect  chiinis  as  tliose  for  the  im 
tional  h)sses  sta*^  m1  in  tlie  (Jase  presented  ou  tlie  i)art  of  tlieOoverniiiPntl 
of  tlie  United  States  to  the  Triliunal  of  Arbitration  at  (leneva,  to  lia\>Hsl 
been  su8taiiie<l  by  'the  loss  in  the  transfer  of  the  Aine,ri(!an  coniineicjal 
n:arine  to  the  liritish   Hay;  the  enhan(M>d  ]>aynients  of  insnrance;  the 
{>rolonj;ation  of  the  war,  and  the  addition  of  a  lar<i(^  sum  to  the  cosi 
of  the  war  and  the  snpjiression  of  the  rebellion 


■<tlv,  were  not 


eluded,  in   fact,  in  the  Treaty  of  Washinjiton;  and  further,  and  sci  i 
ondly,  sl»ould  not  be  admitted  in  principle  as  <;rowin<>'  out  of  the  act; 
committed  by  jtarticular  vessels,  alleged  to  have  been  enabled  to  com 
mit  depredations  upon  the  shippinj^'of  a  belligerent  by  reason  of  such; 
want  of  due  diligence  in  the  ])erf(U'mance  of  neutral  obli<;ations  as  thai 
which  is  imputed  by  the  LTni ted  States  to  Great  Britain;  and  wheroii! 
the  GovernnuMit  of  the  United  States  has  contended  that  the  saiddaini; 
were  included  in  the  Treaty  ;  and  whereas  both  Clovei-nments  adopt  tutl 
the  iuture  the  [)rincii)le  that  claims  for  remote  or  indire<!t  loss(!s  sliouldl 
not  l)e  admitted  as  tiie  result  of  tiie  failure  to  observe  neutral  ol)li;j 
tions,  solar  as  to  declare  that  it  will  hereafter  j;ui(le  the  conduct  of  butj 
Governments  in  their  relations  with  each  other: 

"Now,  therefore,  in  consideiatioii  thereof,  t\w  President  of  the  U'niti 
States,  by  and   witli  the   advice  and  consent, of  the  Senate  tlicrculj 
consents  that  he  will  make  no  claim  ou  the  part  o'.  the  United  State 
in   respect   of  indirect    losses,   as   aforesaid,    before   the   Tribunal  n 
Arbitiation  at  Geneva." 

Her  ^Majesty's  Government  objected,  as  I  informed  you  in  my  lettt'in 
the  L'7th  of  Alay,  to  the  (U'iinition  as  therein  expressed  of  the  principl 
which  both  (iovernments  are  pre])ared  to  adopt  lor  the  future,  as  tm 
vajiue,  and  proposed  the  substitution  of  the  wtuds,  "of  a  like  natiiiv'Hd 
for  the  words,  "  lor  remote  or  indirect  losses.'' and  the  substitutioiioti 
the  words,  "such  want  of  due  dilij;eiu'e  on  the  i)art  of  a  ntMUraI."Hi 
the  words,  "the  I'ailure  to  observe  neutral  oblij^ations." 

On  th(^  L'iMli  of  May  you  communicated  to  me  the  substance  of 
telcfiraphic  despatch  from    Air.  Fish,  statin.i-'  that  the  (Joveinmeiit  i 
the  United  States  declined  to  aj^ree  to  these  alterations,  as  the  estal 
iishment  of  the  prin<'iple  embodied  in  the  article  as  assented  to  by  tlie 
Semite   had   been    its   object   in   adherinj;'   to   that   article.     Vou  ]i;iil| 
previously  explained  to  me,  on  the  precolinj;  day,  that  what  you  cui 
sidert'd  that   the  Governnu'nt  of  the   United   States  desired   was  ll 
establishment  of  a  f>eneral   principle  to  be  api)lied  to  cases  as  th( 
mi<iht  arise,  and  n(»t  limited  to  pailicular  cases  or  circumstances  whkli 
may  or  nniy  not  ever  occur. 

Her  Majesty's  Govermnent  <lid  not  pretend  that  the  words  suyycstiil. 
b}"^  themselves,  were  incajjable  of  improvement,  and  nnule  anotlni 
])roi)osal  to  you  on  the  .".Otli  of  Alay,  which  they  trusted  would  nu'ct  tlit| 
views  of  both  Governments,  as  follows: 

"  Wheivas  the  Govennnent  of  Her  Hritannic  Majesty  has  c()!it('ii(I(' 
in  the  iec<'nt  corresponden<'e  widi  the  Government  of  the  United  »Stali> 
as  follows,  namely : 

"That  sin-li  indirectl  claims  as  those  for  the  national  losses  stalcil;: 
the  Case  |)i'esent(d  on  the  pait  of  the  Governnu'nt  of  the  United  Stall 
to  tlu>  'i'ribunal  ol  Arbitration  at  Geneva,  to  have  been  sustainol  li' 
•  the  loss  in  .he  ti.insfer  of  the  American  cinnnu'icial  marine  lo  tlr 
IJritish  llii;^  ;  th(>  eiiii   ticed  pa\  iiicnl  s  <»!' insurance  ;  tin' prolongation  nl 


COK 

ii>  war ;  ai 
ii|)]>ressioi 
rcat.N"  of  ^ 
uirtcil  in  ] 
csscls  all( 
lippin.^'  o 
lie  pcribrn 
United  Sta 
'•And  wh 
that  the  sa 
"And  wl 
hat  claim.^ 
Ki  adinittei 
i<;er(Mits  n 
liic  (lili,nen 
i<>ati()iis,  s( 
loiidiict  of 
"  Xow,  tl 
IStatcs,  by  i 
Incuts  that  1 
ore  the  Ti 
Iclassi's  of  ii 
On  the  ;Jj 
}].  Tliorntoi 
ly  the  Sem 
ji'oposed  h} 
icvcd  that, 
iictory  to  ll 
On  ithe  sa 
ioni  Mi'.  F 
ilfcrcnce  o 
imitation  \\ 
()  iii'cvent } 
)('  allowetl  1 
i}{Tapli,''  and 
1st  propose 
|prol)al)le  ca 
ohscrvaticHi 
>f  l)ad  faiti 
incuts  wouh 
llcr  Maje 
!()!' the  (lOve 
oiitained  in 
llcave  the  ar 
sonic  few  wo 
which  Her  J 
tiicy  think 
]>iiiiciple,  vi 
mciit,  heinj; 
acts  of  belli 
intcriiationt: 
iiiinlc  at  the 
li:iviii;X  h 
StatcscnU'i' 
cuts,"  llcr  } 
tocliaiiiic  it 


RIUTKATION. 

Eiijilisli  «lraii}j;lir,  A 

lie,  Miijesty  has  con  I 

iniH'iitot  tlie  IJiiiteill 

as  those  tor  th(^  iiaf 

bof  theOovcrnnipiitl 

at  (l(Miova,  to  liavfl 

inerican  coinmcicial 

;s  ot  iiisuraiuu^;  tliri 

:'<>(^  siiiii  to  the  costr 

liistly,  were  not  iiJ 

(I  further,  and  sci  I 

iinji'  out  of  the  aots| 

'eii  enabled  to  com 

by  reason  of  suchiii 

I  oblijiiitions  as  tliati 

L'itaiii ;  and  whcioasl 

that  tlie  saideliihiisl 

^•ernincnts  adopt  fut| 

idireet  losses  slion 

erve  neutral  ol»li;iai 

the  conduct  of  butlij 

sident  of  the  Uiiiti'ill 
the  Senate  thcrcufl 
1  the  United  Stakl 
re   the   Tribuiiid  ul 

1  yon  in  uiy  letter  oil 
ised  of  the  principlJ 
or  tlie  future,  as  tnj 
"of  a  like  natiml 
the  substitutioinil 
rt  (»f  a  neutral."'  tui| 
ns." 

the  substance  ot'ai 

the  (ioveinnieiit  oil 

ations,  as  the  estal 

assented  to  by  tliJ 

artich'.     Vou  M\ 

that  what  you  cniil 

es  desired   was 

<l  to  i-ases  as  tliovl 

ircunistances  \\iiid[ 

lie  words  sufi'ji'estcil 
and    niatle   aiiotluJ 
ited  would  iiu'ct  tliJ 

esty  has  co!ileii(lfii| 
>f  the  United  8tiiuJ 

Mial  losses  stated;;:! 
f  the  United  ,Siatt> 
been  sustaiiicti  livl 
I'cial  marine  to  tliJ 
the  iirolon;i'atioiioi| 


COKRESPONDEXCK    KESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION.       149 

war ;  and  the  addition  of  a  lar<>e  sum  to  the  cost  of  the  war  and  the 
suppression  of  the  rebellit)n  ;'  firstly,  were  not  included  in  fact  iu  the 
Crcaty  of  Wasliingtoii ;  and  furtiier,  iiml  secondly,  should  not  bii  ad- 

itteil  iu  princi|)le  us  jirowin;;-  out  of  tho  acts  couiinitted  by  particular 

psscis  alleged  to  have  been  enabled  to  commit  depredations  upon  the 
sliippiii,u'  of  a  belli,i;erent  by  reason  of  such  a  want  of  due  dilij^ence  iu 
lie  ]»('itbrinance  of  neutral  o!)lij;ations  as  that  which  is  im|)uted  by  the 
lUiiitcd  States  to  (Jreat  Ibitain; 

And  wheniiis  tlu^  (ioveruun'ut  of  the  United  States  has  couteinh'd 
Itliat  the  said  claims  wer(^  included  iu  the  treaty  ; 

''And  whereas  both  <b>v(!rnuuMits  adopt  for  the  future  the  i)riucii>le 
bat  claims  a<>ainst  neutrals  for  remote  and  indirect  losses  should  not 

admitted  as  resultin,i>'  from  the  acts  of  bellijiereuts,  which  such  bel 
hinei'i'iits  amy  have  been  enabled  to  commit  by  reason  of  a  w;'.nt  of 
tliio  (lili,uence  on  the  i)art  of  a  neutral  in  the  perfornumce  of  neutral  ob- 
fifjatioiis,  so  far  as  to  declare  that  this  principle  will  hereatler  j^uide  the 
conduct  of  both  (loveruments  in  their  relations  with  each  other: 

"Xow,  therefore,  in  consideratiou  thereof,  the  President  of  the  United 
fctates,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  theieof,  con- 
sents that  he  will  make  no  claim  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  be- 
fore the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  (leneva,  in  resju'ct  of  the  several 
L'lasses  of  indirect  losses  hereinbefore  enumerated." 


On  the  olst  of  i\fay,  ller  Majesty's  (lovernuient  weie  informed  by  Sir 

1.  Thornton  that  .Mr.  Fish  acknowledj^ed  that  the  art^icle  recommended 

^)y  the  Senate  was  capable!  of  improvenu'ut,  and  thouji'lit  that  the  one 

jiroposcd  by  Jler  Majesty's  (lovernment  mij^lit  also  be  iniprov«'d,  aud  be- 

I'vcd  that,  with  suflicient   tinu',  an  a,i>reement  could  be  come  to  satis- 

ictory  to  both  countries,  whi<di  have  the  same  object. 

On  the  same  ni<;ht  you  commuidcated  to  uie  a  t,eiejirapliic  mes>a,i;e 

IVoni  Ml'.  Fish,  statin,";-  that  "it  is  not  believed  thac  there  is  any  such 

[diricience  of  ol>ject  between  the  two  (iovernaienis  iu  the  detinition  and 

imitation  which  each  de:;;ires  to  jtlace  upon  the  lial)il       of  a  neutral  as 

to  prevent  an  agreement  on  the  languaj;e  in  which  to  express  ii,  if  tiuie 

allowed  lor  an  exchauj^c  of  views  by  son u'  other  means  than  liu^  tele- 

Igraph,"'  and  that  it  api»eared  to  the  l*r«'sident  that  the  Ibrm  of  artich^ 

last  proposed  by  Jli^r  Majesty's  (iovernment  lelt  a  larj^e  class  of  very 

IprobiUile  cases  unprovided  for,  and  that  he  held  (with  referen«'e  to  an 

loltscrvaticHi  iu  uiy  letter  to  you  of  the  28th  of  May)  "  that  the  results 

Jot  had  faith  or  wilfid  misconduct  towanls  either  of  the  two  (lovern- 

[iiicnts  would  ntncr  be  the  subject  <d' pecuniary  comjieusation." 

Her  Majesty's  (Iovernment,  in  their  eariu'st  desire  to  meet  tin-  views 
|of  the  (iovernment  of  the  United  States,  thereupon  made  the  proposal 
ontained  in  my  lettei'  to  you  of  the  .">th  instant,  the  etVect  of  wliich  is  to 
lleave  the  articles  as  ])roposed  by  the  St'uate,  with  the  a<ldition  merely  ot 
Isoniefew  words  of  detinition, which,  if  the  intention  of  the  Senate  was  that 
Iwliich  Her  Majesty's  (loverunu'Ut  have  bt-en  willin,i;'  to  believe,  (thoujuh 
Itlicy  thiidt  it  iusulliciently  expressed,)  do  not  in  any  way  alVect  it  in 
|]trin('i|tle,  vi/:  "TluM'eunde  or  indirect  losses  meutictned  iu  this  agree- 
linent,  heiuj;'  losses  arising'  renuttidy  or  indirectly,  aud  not  (iiri-ctly,  Irom 
lacts  of  I>(>llip'rents,"  and  of  a  declaration  as  to  acts  of  wilfiu  \  n)laliou  of 
[international  duties,  which  might  either  be  inserted  iu  tlif  article  o'' 
linade  at  the  time  of  the  exchange  (»f  ratilicalions. 

Having  learnt,  on  the  7th  instaid,  that  the  ( ioveriunent  ol'  the  United 
[States  entertained  object  i(His  to  the  use  of  the  expression  '•  ai'isof  belliger- 
lents,"  ilcr  Majesty's  (loNcrnnu'iit  infornu'd  .xou  that  they  were  willing 
|t(Mdiange  it  to  "  acts  of  war." 


;;:,..'/ 


f  m^\ 


Y 


■•'•:'.- 1 1 


i-:' 


(  «    -'.f'.A     •     .■,■■■■     .  ',! 


•■I   ;, . 


r  1      .  v. 


.  ((■■■t;.  .1'  ".  -'■ 


"  ■  i 


i-'ti^''" 


•f  . 


150       CORllESPONDENCK    RKSPKCTIN({    GKNEVA    ARHITRATIOX. 

Il'T  INraJcsty's  (JovoriiiiuMit  b('lii'\-<^,  tlu'rcforc,  that  tlicy  liiivr  met  nl! 
the  oltjcctious,  so  Car  as  tli(\v  Iiiivci  Ikmmi  iiiloniuMl  of  tliciii,  wliicli  li;i\> 
l)('(Mi  Iroiii  time  to  time  advanced  to  tlu>  snjiji'dstions  wliirii  tlicy  Imv,. 
made,  and  tliat  this  recapitulation  of  tin;  nc^i'otiatioii  shows  that  niilcsv 
Ilei'  Ma.i'  sty's  (ioveinmeiit  have  erred  in  their  vi(^\v  of  lli(>  piobabh'  in 
tentioii  of  the  Senate,  tile  two  (iovernnients  are  substantially  ayiccil, 
or  that,  if  tiiere  is  any  dilVerence  bctwecMi  tiieni  in  i)rin(!iple,  it  is  rediicni 
to  the  sinalh'st  i)ropoi'tions. 

On  tlie  other  hand,  th»^  oI>jections  wliich    IFer   Majesty's  ( Joverniiicni 
entertain  and  have  expressed  to  tlie  hMif;ua,u('  of  the  ainendinents  iiiikIJ 
by  tlie   Senate,  are  founded  upon  reasons  to  which   they  attach   tl 
.ijreatest  importance,  though  they  think  it  jtossible,  that  the  Senate  di 
not  intend  to  use  tinit  lan,i>ini.i;'e  in  the  sense  which,  acccu'dinj^- to  tl 
vi(>w  of  Her  31ajesly-s  (iovernnient,  the  words  ju'operly  bear. 

The  (loverinnent  of  the  Hnited  States  havii  stated,  in  tlu^  tele<4ra|ilii(| 
ii>essa^i^  from  Mr.  Fish  to  whicli  I  have  alieady  referred,  thatth(>re; 
some  cases  not  provided  for  in  the  words  snjLifiCsted  by  Jler  IMajest 
(lovernment  on  the  .'>(Uh  of  .May.  If  the  (lovernment  of  the  I'liittill 
States  are  of  opinion  that  tliese  cases  are  not  coveicd  by  the  last  p 
j)osed  form  of  article,  and  will  state  what  are  llu^  cases  in  (pu'stidnj 
Iler  Majesty's  (JoverunuMit  cannot  but  think  that  the  two  (lov 
ernnuMds  mij^ht  i)robably  ayrei"  upon  a  Ibrm  of  words  which  W()iilil| 
meet  tliein,  withoid  beinji' open  to  tiie  objections  which  they  have  IVI 
to  the  wording'  of  the  article  as  pro])osed  by  the  Senate.  Jler  Majestv' 
(5o\«'rnnu'nt  have  never  put  forward  their  woids  as  an  ultiinatuni,  mih 
they  will  be  willinj;'  to  consider,  at  tli!"  jtroper  time,  other  woi'<ls,  if  ;iii[ 
adjournment  is  afiree<l  upon. 

1  have  mu"h  jtleasure  in  takiujn'  advantaii'e  of  the  ])reseid()ccasjiiii| 
to  retpu'st  you  to  convey  to  the  (iovernment  of  the  llnited  States  tl 
appreciation  by  Iler  Majesty's  (iovernment  of  the  frank  and  friemi! 
declaration  contained  in  your  ItMter  to  me  of  the  (!th  instant,  icsijectm 
the  last  paraiiiaph  of  the  diauuht  article. 

Iler  .Majesty's  (lONcrunu'nt  had  ncxcr  su])posfMi  thai  the  (loverniiniit| 
of  the  rnited  States  ba<l  dillered  IV(un   Iler  Ma|<'siy"s  (iovernnient 
the  sense  attachecl  to  that  i>ortion  of  the  article,  but  tlu'y  look  ii|iiiii| 
the  declaration   made   in   your  letter    as  an    additional    proof  of  tl 
anxiety,  which  they  are  coniident  is  shared  by  both  (iovernments,  i 
brin,uin,i>'  tiie  lU'ji'otiatiou  to  an  honorable  and  successful  issue. 


I  have  the  honor  to  be.  with  the  hij^hest  consideration,  sir,  your  i 


1111- 


obedieid,  hiuuble  servant. 


(ilJANNIM.K 


No.  71. 

Mr.  I'isli  tl)  <ii iicrid  iScliciicI:. 

ri'ci.-iMiii.  I 

Di'.i'Ai.'TMiiN'r  ov  Statio, 
Wdsltiiit/toii,  J  line  l.'>,  ISTi', 

Tele;;raph    and    write    to    Davis.    Ibttel    llean    IJivajU'c,   (iene\a.  ;is 
follows : 

"See  my  tele^ranis  to  Schenck  of  second  and  uiidh  dune.     II"  ai'uii 
ii.i'nts  are  lileil  in  y-ood  faith,  without  olfiMisive  notice,  we  will  assent  tm 
their  motion  for  adjcuirnnu'ut." 


lRHITRATIOX. 


(!  KAN  villi;. 


CORRKSPONDENCK    RESI'KCTING    GliXKVA    ARIJITRATION.        151 

ZS'o.  7.">. 
Mr.  J)((eis  to  Mr.  Fi.sh. 

['rnlcgnun.] 

(iKNKVA,  June  15,  1871-*.     (Received  nt  O.oO  j).  in.) 
Our  iir^'iiiniMit  pn^siMiteiL     Teiitenleii  ])reseiits   note   in   loria  almost 
|il('iiti(!al   witJi    (Iraiivillc's    note    of    lOtli    to    Sc5lieii('.k,  ol'  wliicli  you 
liiive  copy,  and  says  lie  is  instruetcMl  to   withiiold  IJritisIi  arf>iiiuent. 
riibimal  adjonrns  till  INfonday  I'or  eonsultation  on  our  side. 


No.  7(5. 


Mr.  rish  to  Mr.  Doris. 
['rislef^iiini.j 

JJkpaut:\ii!;nt  of  Si'Aje, 

WaNliuujton,  r/nnc  18,  1872. 
II'  there  is  to  be  an  adjournment,  let  it  be  not  beyond  first  .January, 
ko  as  to  allow  time  lor  n  Treaty,  it  one  be  a^^reed  upon,  to  be  submitted 
[o  the  Senate  in  December,  and  tliereal'ti'r  ibr  the  necessary  le<;islation 
h'spcetinf''  fisheries,  ass(^ssors,  «S:c.  The  rresi<lent  sees  no  objection  to 
kiicli  adjournment,  if  asked  for  by  tlu^  defen(bints,  and  iH)thin}jf  objec- 
[ioiiable  shall  liavc  been  presented.  Vcui  and  Counsel  will  understand, 
and,  if  necessary,  can  say,  that  there  can  bo  wo  extra  session  of  tlu; 
Soiiale  ealle<l;  un<l  there  will  be  no  extra  session  in  ALireh. 


No.  77. 
Mr.  Davis  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[T.ilc-friilln.] 

ClKNKVA,  June  1!),  1872.     (Ueceived  -L."*!)  p.  ni.) 

Tribiuial  will  this  moruiuf;'  make  deidaration  rectitiujj;'  Jb'itish  motion 
I'or  iidjournr  cut,  and  reasons  j-iven  for  nudviufjf  it,  namely,  the  dilfer- 
["iK't's  iu'tween  the  (lovernnu'id^s  as  to  eompi'tency  of  Tiibunal  to  deter- 
mine the  three  elasses  of  indirect  claims,  and  then  continues: 

'The  Arbitrators <lo  iu)t  i>ropose  to  express  or  imply  any  opinion  upon 
llu'pnint  thus  in  dill'erence  between  the  two  (lovernnu'nts  as  to  the  inter- 
jiK'tatioii  orellect  of  the  Treaty,  but  it  seems  to  them  obvious  that  the 
Substantial  object  of  the  adjournment  must  l)i'  to  f>iv(^  the  two  (lovei'U- 
|ii('iitsaM  opportunity  of  determinini''  whether  the  claims  in  (pu-.^ition  shall 
hi  shall  not  be  submitted  to  the  decision  of  the  Arbitrators,  and  that  any 
ilill'erence  between  the  two  (lovernin(>nls  on  this  i)oint  may  make  the 
lidloiniiMient  unproductive  of  any  useful  ell'ect,  and  alter  a  d  lay  (»f 
ViMii.v  iiiiHiths,  «lurin,i;'  wliiidi  both  nations  may  l)e  kept  in  a  state  of 
jiiiiiil'id  suspense,  may  end  in  a  resnlL  which  it  is  to  be  jMcsuau'd 
fiotli  (lovernmiMits  would  e(pially  deplore,  that  of  niakin<;'  this  arbiti'a- 
fioii  wholly  al)oi'live.     Tliis   l)eiu^'  s(»,  the  Arbitrators  tiiiiik  it  ri;;iit  to 


mm 


i:i 


•  w 


152     C(>KKKf<roNUEXCK  KESPECTiNG  (;k\i:va  akuitkation. 


:k,L;- 


state  that  aCtor  tlio  most  caivl'iil  ]H'insal  of  all  that  lias  boon   ui';;t'(l  ()|| 
the,  ])art  of  the  (Jovcrninciit  of  tlii'   I'liitiMl   States  in  lespect   of  tlics^l 
elaiiiis,  they  have  arrived,  individually  and  colleetively,  at  the  eoiidiif 
sioii  that  theseclaiiiisdo  not (;()iistitiite, upon  tliei)rinciplesorinternati()iiiil 
law  applicable  to  such  cases,  {^ood  foundation  for  an  award  of  coniiu'iisnl 
fion  or  computation  of  damaji'es  between  nations;  and  should,  ui)on  sud 
principles,  be  uholly  excluded  from  the  consideration  of  the  Tribiuial  iii| 
makin.n'  its  award,  even  if  there  were  no  disajiieenu'Ut  between  the  twn 
(lovernments  as  to  th(^  competeiu'y  of  the  Tribunal   to  decide  then'dn, 
'With  ii  view  to  the  settlement  of  the  other  claims,  to  tlui  consideratioil 
of  which  by  the  Tiibunal   no  exception  has  been  taken  on  the  partuff 
Her  JJiitannii'  IMajesty's  (lovernment,  the  Arbitrators  have  thou,i>litit 
desirable  to  lay  before  tlu^  i)arties  this  expression  of  the  views  tliini 
have  formed   upon  the  question  of  ])ubli(!  law  involved,  in  order  tlintj 
after  this  declaration  by  the  Tribunal,  it  may  be  <'onsider'i<l  by  tlif| 
(JoveriinuMit  of  the  United  States  whether  any  course  can   l)e  adoptwl 
respect in<;'  the  lirst-mentioned  claims  which  would  relieve  the  Tribunal 
from  the  necessity  of  decidiufj  upon  the  present  application  of  Her  liii 
tannic  .Majesty's  Governnu'iit." 


No.  78. 
"      Mr.  Ih(i-i.s  to  Mr.  Fi.sh. 

['I'<']f^riiiii.] 

(Jeneva,  'fitiie  1!),  1872.     (IJeceived  ar  (i  p.  in.) 

The  Counsel  wiite  me  as  follows: 

"  We  ixvo.  of  the  opinion  that  the  annouiuMMiieiit  this  day  made  bytlitl 
Tribunal  must  be  received  by  the  I'nited  States  as  deteiininativi^  of  it>| 
Jud;iiiient  upon  the  (luestion  of  i)ublic  law  invohed,  up(m  which  (li 
l'nite<i  States  have  insisted  upon  takinii'  the  opinion  of  the  Tribuiiii 
AVe  a<lvise,  therelbre,  that  it  slionld  be  submittc(l  to,  as  i)reclu(liii,:i' tliJ 
propriety  ol"  further  iiisistiiiu'  ujjoii  tlu^  claims  covere<l  by  this  dcclaiaf 
tion  of  '"le  Tribunal,  an<l  that  the  United  States,  with  a  view  of  iii;iiii| 
taiiiiii<i'  (he  due  course  of  the  arbitration  on  the  other  claims  witlioii 
adjoiivnmeiit,  should  announce  to  the  Tiibunal  that  the  said  claims  cdvi 
ercd  by  its  oi>iiiion  will  not  be  I'urther  insisted  u]>oii  belbrellie  TiilMum 
by  the  United  Slati's,  juid  may  be  exchidi'd  from  all  consideration  liv| 
the  Tribunal  in  makiii.i;'  its  awr.rd."' 

DAVIS. 


Xo.  7*». 

Mr.  I'lsli  to  (Icnvral  Schoulc, 
[T.'l.'.UTam.] 

])E1'A1!TMENT  OK  STATE, 

\Vu.sliin()l(iii,  June  "2'2,  \>''l-. 
Send  follow  in/.;  I'y  telejiraph,  and  also  by  mail,  uitliout  delay,  to  |);ivi> 
(ieneva : 

[.!/>•.  Fish  io  Mr.  J)ai'!s.] 

"Your  telejiia  111  of  I!tth  informs  me  that  the  Tribunal  ha.s  made  a  dcol 
laratioii  statin*;  that  the  Arbitrators  have  arrived  at  the  conclusion  llm 


I. 


KMUTHA'riON. 
Iins  been   iirjicd 

ill  10SlKH',t     of  Wu'fA 

vcly,  jit  tlio  ('oiicliif 
i|)los(»fint('riiati()iiii 
award  of  coiiiiiciisiil 
1(1  should,  upon  siiij 
II  of  tlui  Tribunal  ill 
;'nt  bctwcou  tlie  twn 

to  <locidi»  tli(M('oii.| 
to  tlic  <!Oiisid(M;ttii 
taken  on  the  partofl 
N»rs  liave  thoii,nlitii 
1  of  the  views  tlicvi 
>lvod,  in  onhM-  liniij 

considered  by  tlicj 
rse  can  be  adoptwl 
relieve  the  Tribunal 
lication  oi'  Her  JJij. 


I'ceived  at  (5  ]>.  iii,j 

his  (hiy  made  by  tliJ 

leterniinative  of  itJ 

il,  upon  which  tliJ 

:)n  of  the  Tribuiiiilj 

i>,  as  j»r('('hi<liiij>'  tliti 

cd  by  this  (b'clai;i| 

illi  a  view  of  iiinii 

Iter  claims  witlioiitl 

he  said  claims  cdvl 

before  the  Tiibiiiia 

1  consideration  lui 

DAVIS. 


OK  8tati% 

;ii,  rJiinc'2'J.,  ISTl', 

loiit  delay,  to  Daviv 


nal  has  made  a  dec 
the  conclusion  tliiitl 


CORHESPONDENCE    RESPECTINQ   GENKVA   ARBITRATION.       153 

tdiissof  the  claims  set  forth  in  the  Case  presented  in  behalf  of  the  United 
States  do  not  constitute,  upon  tiie  principles  of  international  law  appli- 
calile  to  such  cases,  a  ^'ood  foundation  for  an  uward  of  cotnpeiisiition  or 
conipiitation  of  damages  between  nations,  and  should,  upon  such  |)rinci- 
l)les,  he  wholly  excluded  from  the  consideration  of  the  Tribunal  in  making 
lij)  its  award. 

"You  also  inform  me  that  the  Counsel  of  this  Government  before  the 
rrihniial  at  Geneva  have  advised  in  writii!};  that  they  are  of  opinion 
^liattlie  announcement  thus  made  by  the  Tribunal  must  be  received  by 

le  United  States  as  determinative  of  its  Jiid;>nient  upon  the  question 
}f  i)ublic  law  involved,  upon  which  the  United  St  ites  have  insisted  upon 
lakiiiji  tlie  opinion  of  the  Tribuiml ;  that  the  Counsel  advise,  therefore, 
[liat  this  jadfiinent  be  submitted  to  as  piecludin;''  the  i»ropriety  of 
itntlier  insisting*,'  upon  the  claims  coveivd  by  the  declaration  of  the 
[I'ribiiiial;  and  that  the  United  3tates,  with  a  view  of  maintainin};  the 
Juo  course  of  arbitration  on  the  other  claiins,  without  adjournment, 
[iliould  announ(!e  its  opinion  that  the  claims  referred  to  by  the  Tribunal 
nil  not  be  further  insisted  upon  by  the  United  States,  and  may  be  ex- 
|;lu(Ie(l  from  its  consideration  by  the  Tiibnnal  in  inakinj;'  its  award. 

"1  have  laid  your  tele;;Tams  before  the  President,  who  directs  me  to 
^ay  that  he  accepts  the  declaration  of  the  Tribunal  as  its  Judgment  upon 

(|iiestion  of  public  law,  which  he  had  felt  that  the  interests  of  both 
joveniments  required  should  be  decided,  and  for  the  determination  of 
vliicli  he  had  felt  it  important  to  present  the  claims  leferred  to  for  th*^ 
purpose  of  taking;  theopinion  of  tlie  Tribunal. 

This  is  the  attainment  of  an  end  which  this  Government  had  in  view 
III  the  putting  forth  of  those  (tlaiins.  We  liad  no  desire  for  a  pecuniary 
luaid,  bat  desired  an  expression  by  the  Tribunal  as  to  the  liability  of  a 
peiitral  for  claims  of  that  charactei'.  The  President,  therefore,  further 
kcccpts  the  opinion  and  advice  of  the  Counsel  as  set  lortli  above,  and 
juthorizes  the  announcement  to  the  Tribunal  that  he  accepts  their  declu- 
latioii  as  determinative  of  their  judgment  upon  the  important  qnestion 
If  public  law  upon  which  he  had  felt  it  his  dnty  to  seek  the  ex|)ression 
If  their  oiiinion;  and  that  in  a(;cordaii(;e  with  such  Judgment  and 
jpiiiioii,  from  hencetbrth  he  regards  the  claims  set  forth  in  the  Case  pre- 

eutetl  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  for  loss  in  the  transfer  of  the 

Uueiican  commercial  marine  to  the  British  tiag,  the  enhanced  pay- 
lieiitof  insurance,  and  the  prolongation  of  the  war,  and  the  addition  of  a 
luge  Slim  to  the  cost  ot  the  war,  ami  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion, 
Is  adjudicated  and  disposed  of ;  and  that,  consequently,  they  will  not 
fci' tuitlier  insisted  upon  before  the  Tribunal  l>y  tlie  United  States,  but 
[re  henceforth  exclude<l  from  its  consideration  by  the  Tribunal  in  making 
ts  award." 


No.  80. 


Mr.  Davis  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Telegruni.] 

Geneva,  June  25, 1872.    (Received  at  8  p.  m.) 
t'ouiisel  write  me  regarding  the  statement  sent  Schenck  for  you  to-day. 
'Weeoiicnr  in  the  form  of  communication  to  the  Tribunal  of  the  action 
If  our  Government  which  you  propo.se  to  make." 
11  fi  A  ■ 


^.MJm 

s* 

X  i-m 

h 

1 

i 


r-)lM 


ff, ; -^  - 

■f  V.  ' 

t,  -•I  - 

<■'  -fi  ■ 

'  •■/t: 

"'^■.'5>/ 

'I's^  ■ 

t  rJTi 

■,'J- 


154      COKIIKSPONDEXCE    RESPECTING    GEN'EVA    ARBITRATION. 

\  No.  81. 

'I  -',     -  '  ■     ■    . 

General  Schcnelc  to  Mr.  FLsh. 

[T.-lf'rrinn.] 

London,  Jane  lilJ,  1872.    (Reeeivetl  at  11  a.  m.) 
Dcivis  tolegr.iphs  as  follows  : 


Mr.  J)aris  to  Mr.  Fish. 


\ 


"Af  tlu>  (JonConMico  (ionvciuMl  tin's  dity  [Juno  2~}]  by  Connt  Sdopis,  [I 
vSiiitl  tlio  (Iccliiiiitioii  riiatle  Ity  tlic  riibmiiil,  iiidiviiltiiilly  and  colled ivelyj 
rcspccliii^i'  tlic  ('liiiins  inrst'iiteil  Uy  tin:  United  States  for  the  award  oftlifl 
TiiiHinal  for,  liist,  the  losses  in  (lie  ti'ansfer  of  the  Aaierieaii  eoiiinu'icia 
marine  to  theliiitish  ila^';  second,  the eiihaticed  paynxMit  of  iiisni'aiii!t';| 
and  third,  the  piolon^atajn  of  the  war,  and  the  additii>M  of  a  lar^esinr 
t«)  the  cost  of  the  war  and  the  snppression  of  the  reltellion,  is  acccptwll 
by  the  President  ol  the   United  JStates  as  deteriniinitive  of  their  jiuljif 
nient  npon  the  important  (piestion  of  pnblic  law  involved.     The  A;,f('iit| 
of  the  United  Stales  is  aiitlKM  izcd  to  say  that  conse(piently  the  al)»vef 
incniionetl  claims  will  not  be  further  insisted  upon  before  the  TriUiiiin 
by  (he  United  States,  and  may  he  excluded  IVom  all  consideration  in  aiijl 
award  that  may  la>  made.     To  this  LiU'd  Tenterdeii  replied  :  '  1  will  iiiforinl 
my  (Jovernment  of  the  <leclaration  made  by  the  Arbitrators  on  the  liltkl 
instant,  and  of  the  statement  now  made  by  the  Ajient  of  the  Ui;iteil| 
States,  and  request  tiieir  instructions.'    The  Tribunal  tiieii  adjoinroil 
to  Thursday  at  11,  to  enable  him  to  coiumuiiicate  by  telegraph  with  Lij| 
Governuieut." 


\i^ 


1  l:    ■ 


No.  82. 

Mr.  Schenck  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Telegram.] 

London,  June  27,  1872.     (Received  at  12  in.) 
Davis  telesrapbs  mo  to  send  you  the  following: 

[Mr.  Paris  to  Mr.  Fish.] 

"  Lord  Tenterden  will  say  this  day  to  Tribunal,  Her  Majesty's  Govern 
inent  tinding  the  communication  on  the  jiartof  the  Arbitrators  recordcil 
ill  tiie  protocol  of  tiieir  proi;e<!(lin;;s  of  tlie  10th  instant  nothing  to  wliicli 
tliey  cannot  assent  consistently  with  their  vieiv  of  theinter[)retatioit  ain!! 
effect  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  hitherto  maintained  by  them;  ainiL 
being  informed  of  thestatement  made  on  tho2oth  instant  by  the  Ageiitol 
the  United  States,  that  the  several  claims  particularly  mentioned  in  tbati 
statement  will  not  be  further  insisted  upon  before  the  Tribunal  by  tlifl 
United  States,  an«l  may  be  ex<!liidcd  from  all  consideration  in  any  awail' 
that  may  be  made,  and  assuming  that  the  Arbitrators  will,  upon  sink 
statement,  think  tit  now  to  dectlare  that  the  said  several  claims  are,  amlL 
I'rom  henceforth  will  be,  wholly  excluded  from  their  consideration,  aiiiil 
will  embody  such  <lecla>ation  in  their  protocol  of  this  day's  proceedin;*! 
they  have  instructed  the  undersigned,  upon  this  being  done,  to  reqiiestl 
leave  to  withdraw  the  application  made  by  him  to  the  Tribunal  on  tliJ 


.RBITBATION. 


ceived  at  11  a.  in.) 


1  by  Count  S(;lo|)is,  1 
liilly  iiiid  colU'ctivflvJ 
s  tnrtlu',  a\viir(l()l"tli(| 
V.uu'ri(!aii  eomiiu'rcial 
lyiiMMit  of  iiisiUiiiuu'; 
(litioii  of  a  lai};i' siimi 
ivtit'lli.)!!,  is  acccptcdl 
illative  ot  their  jiKijf 
iivolved.     Tim  Ajjciitl 
ise(iueiitly  tlu'  siUovej 
I  before  tlie  Trihmiiil 
I  coiiisideratioii  in  iiiiji 
epiieil :  '  1  will  inrorinl 
H)itrators  on  the  l!)tl;l 
\jj;eiit  of  the  Uiiiteiil 
)mial  then  adjoiuTeiil 
by  telegraph  with  liiJ 


Received  at  12  m.) 


er  Mnjesty's  Govern 
Arbitrators  recordcill 
itiit  nothing  to  wli 
ieinteri)retatioiianiii 
taiiied  by  theni ;  aiiiil 
.Stan  t  by  the  Agent  oil 
•ly  mentioned  in  tbatl 

the  Tribunal  by  tlif| 
eration  in  any  awail 
itors  will,  upon  smtl 
vend  claims  are,  amlf 
ir  consideration,  ai 

is  day's  i)rocee«liii;;j.| 
eing  done,  to  reqiifji 

the  Tribunal  on  tlifl 


CORRESPONDENCK    KESPECTING    GENEVA    AKHITUATION.        155 

ITitli  instant  for  such  an  a<1jounitii<'nt  as  niigbt  ('nable  a  supplementary 
[■oiiviMilioii  to  be  <-()nelii<led  and  ratified  between  the  High  (.Jontra<'ting 
';irli('s, ii"<l  f**  requeist  leave*  lodelivi'r  the  printed  •  'giiment  now  in  the 
Sounds  of  the  uiidersijjrneil,  which  has  biM'ii  pi'epaie>  on  the  part  of  Iler 
Jiiitaniiic  .Miji'sly's  (iiiveniiiieiit,  under  the  fiflh  'licleof  the  Ti'eaty. 
p.Villi  icrereiKH'  to  the  other  (Maims  to  tiie  ('onsideraiion  of  which,  by  the 
riihiiiial,  no  exception  has  been  taken  on  the  part  of  her  Majesty's 
(ioveiiiment." 


No.  83. 
Mr.  Davis  to  Mr.  Fish. 
[Tolcgmiu.] 
Geneva    Uim  21,  187L'.     (Itecoived  at  .'{.4;")  p.  m.) 


British  {irgiiment  tibni.     Arhiiration  uoes  on. 


m. 


-^^M 

f 

m 

I' 

u 

}iM 

[ 

H^^m 

H 

m 

1 

fm 

\ 

1 

'{M^M 

^  Vv'^^B 

«.; 

|;f^ 

w 

•'*'  'i^ 

SX'. 

-'  ".'^m 

hi; 

'■  ■  M 

W' 

■'>  '■-■iwi 

i^'' 

■rhf 


Its -J 

ft 


